The Assault On Academic Freedom At UCLA

The College Fix
Kathryn Hinderaker - St Olaf College •October 23, 2017



Over the past few years, UCLA has lost four prominent scholars: James Enstrom, Keith Fink, Val Rust and Tim Groseclose.

Each incident is different, whether they left, resigned, or were forced out. But they all have a common thread: each professor took a stance against left-liberal principles at UCLA — and now they are no longer teaching there.

This attack on conservatism is not unique to UCLA, but the school has become the perfect case study for the phenomenon.

The converging timelines of these four professors’ experiences show that rejection of intellectual freedom in academia is a pattern of behavior, not an isolated event.

Stifling speech and diverse thought on college campuses takes place nationwide, and UCLA is no exception. Although the four recent examples found at one of California’s flagship research institutions are particularly egregious and should cause concern that the problem is pressing and must be addressed.

The case of James Enstrom

Enstrom, a professor at the UCLA School of Public Health since 1976, received a notice from the school of his termination in June 2010. His research, they say, was “not aligned with the academic mission of the Department.”

 Enstrom’s crime? He had published a well researched, peer-reviewed study that debunked the false scientific theory that fine particulate air pollution kills Californians. This, he argued, was reason to eliminate many unnecessary environmental regulations in place in California, some of which were pioneered by fellow faculty.

Enstrom had been given every reason to believe his position at UCLA was secure, but once his unpopular opinions gained traction, administrators pulled the rug out from under him, and he was fired. With the help of FIRE and the American Center for Law and Justice, Enstrom sued for “being unconstitutionally retaliated against for his research and writing.” In the end, UCLA settled and Enstrom was allowed to keep his “retired researcher” status, effectively undoing the termination.

The case of Val Rust

Today Rust is a professor emeritus at UCLA. Before that he was a pioneer in his field of international and comparative education, and spent more than four decades mentoring students from around the world and assisting in international development efforts.

But after Rust corrected one student’s capitalization of the word “indigenous” and questioned modern feminist theory, students grabbed their pitchforks.

On Nov. 14, 2013, a group of students made a sudden entrance into Rust’s class, and proceeded to form a circle around him so they could read to him the grievances that “graduate students of color” had about him and his class, reports City Journal.

The school reacted to this “troubling situation” that they were taking “extremely seriously” by placing three other professors in the class with Professor Rust. Rust, presumably, was no longer capable of handling his classroom alone.

In the following weeks, the students circulated a petition for further action to be taken, and convened for a town hall. The situation escalated after Rust approached one of the protest leaders after class to engage him in conversation. The conversation resulted in the student filing a criminal charge of battery against Rust, a then 79-year-old, for at one point reaching out and touching the student’s arm. Rust was banned from school premises for the rest of the academic year.

The case of Keith Fink

Fink, an attorney, was a continuing lecturer at UCLA teaching highly popular classes on free speech, among other subjects. He was also critical of UCLA administration, and in particular their tendency to stifle students’ free speech rights.

 Fink was subject to a job performance review earlier this year to determine if he will continue lecturing at the school. This is standard practice, and according to Fink, usually a breeze to pass. However, Fink said he was railroaded by a star-chamber process run by peers biased against him. He failed the performance review.

Despite petitions against the review decision and support from fellow faculty and students, Fink was terminated in June 2017. But he continues to fight back against UCLA’s oppressive administration. He even plans to establish a nonprofit to provide free legal services for UCLA students and professors whose rights have been violated.

The case of Tim Groseclose

Groseclose had taught at UCLA as a professor of political science since 2003. He’s a known conservative, and published the book “Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind” in 2011.

 He came up for a promotion, but despite extremely favorable letters, and even some support from his far left-wing colleagues, the promotion was denied by an anonymous committee of five people.

In a recent email to The College Fix, Groseclose said that the “incident made it clear to me that conservatives were no longer welcome at UCLA.”

Groseclose also says it became clear that if he stayed at UCLA, his salary would not keep pace with inflation. And in some of the world’s best timing, a peer at George Mason University called to ask him to apply for a position there. Groseclose happily agreed, and accepted a job offer there in the fall of 2013.

Groseclose said he had seen the writing on the wall at UCLA, citing the Enstrom affair.

“So when the committee voted against my promotion, things were clear to me: Even if your research productivity is the highest in your department, even double that of second place, if you have conservative political views, then you’re not welcome at UCLA,” he said.

‘Playing russian roulette’

Reached for comment, a right-leaning UCLA professor still working there told The College Fix that “conservatives, if they are going to be conservatives [at UCLA], they are playing russian roulette. They are taking their lives into their hands.” He asked to remain unnamed.

UCLA did not respond to The College Fix’s request for comment.

The summaries of each case does not do them justice. All are clear acts of assault on academic freedom, and should not be taken lightly. But as each case is different, it shows there is more than one way for universities to expel intellectual diversity.

The examples at UCLA have borne that out.

To say there is no conclusion to be drawn between these four incidents at UCLA would be willful ignorance of a larger problem facing higher education today.

For every public case, there are perhaps a dozen more professors self-censoring to protect their jobs.

This limiting of speech in the classroom must end, or students suffer. Thinking critically is rather difficult when you have never had anyone be critical of your thoughts.

Yet this trend will likely continue at UCLA and elsewhere, and our country’s self-proclaimed bastions of diversity will continue to get more and more homogeneous.

MORE: Researcher punished for exposing climate fraud beats UCLA

MORE: Tired of Racism Claims, UCLA Student Sets Record Straight

MORE: UCLA students blocked from enrolling in conservative professor’s ‘Free Speech on Campus’ class


Thank You Ms Hinderaker and The College Fix.

UC Davis Offers Exclusive Grants To LGBT, Illegal Immigrant Students

Imagine the uproar if it was going the other way.

thecollegefix
George Congdon - Emory University •October 24, 2017



Students need only to ‘identify’ a certain way to receive monetary gifts

Special programs at the University of California, Davis offer narrowly tailored grants based on sexual orientation, “gender identity” and immigration status, The College Fix has learned.

UC Davis’s AB540 and Undocumented Student Center offers a variety of grants intended for students who are in the country illegally. Among them are “emergency grants,” a “bedding grant” and an “UnducoScholar award.”

The emergency grants, which are capped at $500, stipulate that the recipient must have “AB540 undocumented status,” must have a “DREAM Act application on file with UC Davis Financial Aid Office,” and must have exhausted all other financial aid opportunities at the university.

However, it is unclear if it is actually necessary for recipients to have AB540 status to qualify. The emergency grant requests that “only those students who identify as AB540 / undocumented” apply for the loan.

Whether or not one can “identify” with such an immigration status without technically holding the status is unclear. The student center did not respond to The College Fix’s requests for comment on the matter.

The center also offers students in the country illegally students a “bedding grant.” The application material for that grant, which appears to comprise a gift of sheets and pillowcases, lays out no criteria students must meet in order to qualify for it; the instructions simply tell students to email the center’s director and “explain why you would like the bedding.”

Similarly, the university’s LGBTQIA+ Resource Center distributes grants to “LGBTQIA+” students. “Since funding is limited,” the application reads, “we ask that only those who identify as LGBTQIA+ and have no access to other resources and forms of continuous and abundant financial support utilize this grant.”

Reached via email, Elizabeth Coté, a representative from the Center, told The College Fix: “There are no measures taken to confirm the identities of those who apply for grants. We utilize the criteria provided by the private donor funding this grant. Scholars either self-identify as meeting those criteria or not.”

Julia Ann Easley, a campus spokeswoman, corroborated this procedure to The Fix via email: “A private donor funds the emergency grants available through the LGBTQIA Resource Center. To meet those criteria for the grants, students self-identify.”

Easley also told The Fix that the grants for students in the country illegally are funded by “a combination of developed funds and U.C. Davis President’s Undocumented Students Initiative.”

We Are Aggie Pride distributes two different “awards” to UC Davis students. As with the grants listed above, these awards do not have to be paid back.

MORE: Smith College to offer scholarship to illegal immigrants

MORE: Iowa State University offers scholarships that appear to exclude white applicants

Thank You Mr Congdon and The College Fix.

UC Berkeley Faculty Want To Shut Down Campus For Free Speech Week

frontpagemag
September 18, 2017
Mark Tapson

This Is A Clear Threat To Higher Education

A faculty letter addressed to the UC Berkeley campus and the Berkeley community at large is calling for a complete boycott of classes and campus activities during the upcoming “Free Speech Week," which will feature conservative speakers whose very names inspire college students to seek safe spaces and therapy.

The Berkeley paper called The Daily Californian reports that the letter was co-written by seven faculty members, including Michael Cohen, a campus associate teaching professor of African American studies. The letter urges fellow faculty members to take three steps: cancel classes and tell students to stay home; close buildings and departments and allow staff to stay home; and not penalize students who are afraid of coming to campus. The letter was signed by 132 campus faculty members from various departments, and by 56 individuals who aren’t part of the UC Berkeley faculty.

Cohen said that most of the students in his African American Studies class are students "of color," and he believes it is unethical and discriminatory for him to ask his students to be on campus during Free Speech Week, which will be held on campus from Sept. 24-27.

As noted by the Daily Californian, Free Speech Week is being hosted by the Berkeley Patriot, a conservative student newspaper. The four-day event includes themes such as “Feminism Awareness Day” and “Mario Savio is Dead.” Speakers scheduled to be on campus include Freedom Center founder David Horowitz, libertarian provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, conservative commentator Ann Coulter, and dreaded Breitbart honcho Steve Bannon.

“This is a clear threat to public higher education,” said Cohen. He and the other signers of the letter reluctantly concede that "we are legally bound by the Constitution to allow all viewpoints on campus." But "there are forms of speech that are not protected under the First Amendment. These include speech that presents imminent physical danger and speech that disrupts the university’s mission to educate."

The university's mission is to educate? Who knew?

"Milo, Coulter and Bannon do not come to educate; they and their followers come to humiliate and incite... The boycott is a refusal to allow this to happen on our campus.”

“We’re not afraid of Milo, Ann (Coulter) or Bannon’s words," claim the signatories of the letter. "We have a deep anxiety over the violence that their followers bring in response,” Cohen said.

Of course, the issue is not violence on the part of the followers of Yiannopoulos, Coulter, Bannon, et al; as always, it is the radical leftists who bring violence and mayhem to such events under the pretense of anti-fascism and self-defense.

“Chancellor [Carol T.] Christ’s idea that we can have these people on campus is a fantasy and a dangerous one,” Cohen complained, but he should be directing his complaint against the masked, black-clad, armed, anti-free speech protesters who come to assault innocent bystanders, intimidate peaceful conservative students, and vandalize public and private property. They are the ones who are truly dangerous.

Download a pdf of the full letter here.

From TruthRevolt.org
Tags: Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, Free Speech, uc berkeley

Thank You Mr Tapson and FPM/TruthRevolt

University of California States Its Case Against White House DACA Plans

townhall

Cortney O'Brien

Sept 10, 2017

The Trump administration is facing threats and lawsuits left and right for its recent announcement it would be rescinding the DACA program. Enacted by President Obama in 2012 by executive action, DACA provides protection to illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. when they were children.

Fifteen states and Washington, D.C suedWednesday of last week. On Friday, the University of California followed suit. It was a predictable move, considering UC President Janet Napolitano, who served as Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security, helped draft DACA.

Trump's plan to dismantle DACA violates both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the school argues. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is a law that governs the manner in which the federal administrative agencies implement various regulations, Campus Reform quickly explains. The White House did not "articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action" and therefore did not live up to the APA.

The school then explains how due process was overlooked.


“Finally, in rescinding DACA, Defendants violated the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution by failing to provide the University with any process before depriving it of the value of the public resources it invested in DACA recipients, and the benefits flowing from DACA recipients’ contributions to the University,” the plaintiffs argue.

“More fundamentally, they failed to provide DACA recipients with any process before depriving them of their work authorizations and DACA status, and the benefits that flow from that status.”

This all amounts to "unreasoned executive whim" on the part of the president.

Despite the liberal outrage, the White House's announcement was not as cruel as they may think. When Attorney General Jeff Sessions said they would be rescinding DACA, he also noted they would be giving Congress six months to try and make it constitutional. In the meantime, President Trump told DACA recipients not to worry.

Thank You Townhall and Ms O'Brien.

Conservative Prof Loses Job After Spat With UCLA Admins

campusreform
Anthony Gockowski Investigative Reporter Jun 29, 2017 at 1:13 PM EDT

 
Keith Fink had objected to having enrollment in his popular free speech course slashed dramatically, a provocation he believes was contrived in anticipation of his upcoming "Excellence Review."

Three of the faculty members on the review committee were flagged by Fink in advance for potentially harboring bias against him, and the committee ultimately deadlocked 3-3-3.

The tie-breaking vote was left to Social Sciences Dean Laura Gomez, who took several weeks before deciding that Fink's contract would not be renewed.

A popular conservative professor has been fired by the University of California, Los Angeles following an “excellence review” that his defenders say was marred by “politically-motivated” bias.

Keith Fink taught as a communications lecturer at UCLA since 2008, long enough to prompt a routine “excellence review,” though as Campus Reform previously reported, at least two members of the faculty committee had demonstrated prior bias against him, including Department Chair Kerri Johnson.


"Keith will continue to fight for these principles that he holds dear."

[RELATED: Tenured conservative prof retires due to liberal persecution]

Johnson, in fact, arbitrarily limited the number of students who could enroll in his popular free-speech course, repeatedly placing caps on enrollment.

Still, the faculty committee deadlocked in a 3-3 vote on Fink’s case, leaving his fate in the hands of Social Sciences Dean Laura Gomez, who announced Tuesday that his contract would not be renewed because his teaching did “not meet the standard of excellence.”

However, Fink had routinely received glowing end-of-term course evaluations from students, earning an average “Instructor Rating” of 8.17 and an average “Course Rating” of 8.14 on a nine-point scale, both of which figures his colleagues called “very high” compared to the departmental average in their review letter.

[RELATED: Judge upholds Marquette’s suspension of conservative prof]

According to copies of end-of-term evaluations obtained by Campus Reform, students consistently described Fink as “one of the best instructors,” the “epitome of a role model,” and “inspiring and life-changing.”

In their letter to Dean Gomez, the faculty committee responsible for reviewing Fink’s teaching even conceded that “these indices skewed toward a favorable view of Mr. Fink’s teaching effectiveness,” but expressed concern over the “rigor” of his assessment of students, and the “climate fostered within the classroom.”

In response to the faculty committee’s letter, though, Fink demonstrated that his assessment of students was comparable to most other professors in his department.

Nonetheless, Gomez, in a five-sentence letter, notified Fink of his termination Tuesday, a move Fink’s teaching assistant Andrew Litt described as lacking “explanation likely because there are no credible arguments to be made that support the conclusion that Keith is not excellent.”

Indeed, Gomez’s letter offers little explanation as to the rationale behind Fink’s termination apart from stating that his “teaching does not meet the standard of excellence.”

Litt told Campus Reform that “no reason makes sense other than the fact that this review has been conducted in a politically-motivated viewpoint-discriminatory manner from the outset.”

[RELATED: Students say they feel ‘threatened’ by conservative views]

“Keith will continue to fight for these principles that he holds dear,” Litt added. “His termination is an injustice to the students and the taxpayers of the state, a threat to all teachers and academic freedom, and a slap in the face to the notion of due process and fundamental fairness.”

Campus Reform reached out to Gomez for elaboration on her decision, and will update this article if a response is received.


Thank You Mr Gockowski and Campus Reform.

UC Berkley Claims Right To Suppress Speech In Legal Motion

campus reform
Peter Van Voorhis California Campus Correspondent Jun 30, 2017 at 9:22 AM EDT

 
The University of California, Berkeley is trying to get a judge to dismiss the First Amendment lawsuit filed by conservative students after the school blocked Ann Coulter from speaking.

The students allege a pattern of administrators stifling conservative speech, such as the use of a vague "high profile speaker" policy used to deny Coulter and other conservative speakers a forum on campus.

The university's motion argues that the issue is "moot" because it has promised to replace its speaker policy, and that the speech restrictions in question were "viewpoint neutral."

The University of California, Berkeley is trying to get a judge to dismiss the First Amendment lawsuit filed by conservative students after the school blocked Ann Coulter from speaking.

The suit alleges that UC administrators have systematically stifled “the speech of conservative students whose voices fall beyond the campus political orthodoxy,” claiming that Berkeley has selectively enforced a new “high profile speaker” policy in order to deny conservatives a platform on campus.

"I am happy that the university has finally realized their draconian policies need reform."

[RELATED: UC-Berkeley will not silence conservatives]

In a court document obtained by Campus Reform, attorneys for the defendants—who include UC System President Janet Napolitano and UC-Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks—petition the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to dismiss the allegations as “moot,” arguing that it has since replaced the “high profile speaker” policy, and that in any event the school was within its rights to shut down Coulter’s speech because it didn’t do so explicitly on the basis of her political viewpoints.

“The alleged restrictions were viewpoint neutral because they were not motivated by disagreement with the speaker’s viewpoint,” the attorneys assert, adding that the restrictions were also “constitutional ‘time, place, and, manner regulations’ because they were content neutral, narrowly tailored to serve the significant government interests in safety, education, and distribution of university resources, and left open ample alternative channels of communication.”

[RELATED: Berkeley riot shows conservatives aren’t welcome on campus]

Young America’s Foundation (YAF), which filed the lawsuit in conjunction with the Berkeley College Republicans, derided UC’s motion to dismiss as “bizarre” in a post on its website Thursday, pointing out that Berkeley has yet to unveil its new free speech policy and insisting that the school’s actions were “clearly viewpoint-discriminatory.”

“This weak attempt by the University of California, Berkeley to brush off their egregious free speech violations is staggering but unfortunately unsurprising given their demonstrated pattern of suppressing the First Amendment rights of conservatives on campus,” YAF spokesman Spencer Brown declared, pledging that “YAF will continue to stand up for students’ rights when their own schools engage in flagrant obstruction of free expression.”

[RELATED: Berkeley riot lays bare liberal hypocrisy on free speech]

“It is preposterous that the university is attempting to dismiss a valid lawsuit over the idea that they plan to make future policy changes,” Berkeley College Republicans member Naweed Tahmas told Campus Reform, saying he is skeptical that the new policy will be the panacea for free speech that university officials are promising.

“While I am happy that the university has finally realized their draconian policies need reform, it does not excuse them of their past actions,” Tahmas continued. “Given UC Berkeley's well-documented precedent of censoring conservative speakers, I have little faith that the university will take any substantial strides in making UC Berkeley the home of free speech again.”

[RELATED: Berkeley students want to fight fascism by banning speech]

CR President Troy Worden offered a similar assessment, saying the club is encouraged but not convinced by the school’s public statements on the matter.

“The UC Berkeley administration claims they have modified and codified their ‘high-profile’ speakers policy such that the First Amendment rights of the Berkeley College Republicans and Young America's Foundation are no longer in jeopardy,” he observed cautiously, saying the move “would be a welcome development if it does what university administrators claims it does.”

For now, though, Worden acknowledged that all conservative students can do is “await this new speakers policy” and hope it is “not aimed at shutting down conservative speech on campus.”

Spokespersons for UC-Berkeley did not respond to a request for comment from Campus Reform.

Thank Yu Mr Van Voorhis and Campus Reform.

UC Gets Massive Funding Boost Despite Secret Slush Fund

campus reform
Dan Jackson Campus Reform Intern Jul 03, 2017 at 11:55 AM EDT

 
The University of California system received a $131.2 million funding increase in this year's state budget, just months after a State Auditor's report found more than $175 million in undisclosed reserves held by the Office of the President.

Gov. Jerry Brown (D) has placed a hold on $50 million of that increase, however, until the system implements all 33 recommendations in the audit report and agrees to greater budgetary transparency going forward.

The University of California system is receiving a substantial increase in state funding despite a recent audit finding that administrators had been hiding a $175 million surplus from lawmakers.

According to The Daily Bruin, the 2017-2018 budget approved last week by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown boosts funding for the UC system by $131.2 million, in keeping with a deal struck with UC President Janet Napolitano in 2015 that forestalled tuition hikes for two years.


"It’s clear that the [UC system] can pay for additional students out of their discretionary budget."

That agreement, however, had been premised on the system’s claims that it would be forced to raise tuition by as much as five percent each year for five years without a massive infusion of cash, but an audit ordered by state lawmakers earlier this year appears to cast doubt on that assertion.

[RELATED: UC to investigate claims that Napolitano tampered with audit]

The State Auditor’s report released on April 25 found “more than $175 million in undisclosed restricted and discretionary reserves” amassed surreptitiously by the UC Office of the President, which even created a secret budget to spend some of the reserves on things like inflated administrative salaries and improvements to the president’s residence.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that state lawmakers have been sharply critical of the slush fund, pointing out that $175 million would have been enough to enroll 35,000 students in UC schools.

“There is more money out there to fund more California students at UC,” declared Democratic State Assemblyman Phil Ting. “It’s clear that the Office of the President themselves can pay for additional students out of their discretionary budget.”

Napolitano responded to the audit by saying that she welcomes its “constructive input” and plans to implement the recommendations contained in the report, though she also objected that it “fundamentally and unfairly mischaracterizes UCOP’s budget practices and processes.”

[RELATED:Lawmakers propose defunding Evergreen State amid protests]

UC spokesperson Claire Doan confirmed in a statement to the Bruin that the system plans to implement all 33 recommendations contained in the State Auditor’s report, but Gov. Brown is looking for extra assurance by placing a hold on $50 million of the recent funding increase.

The monies will only be released once the UC system meets several conditions, including full adoption of the State Auditor’s recommendations, curtailment of benefits for some administrators, and a commitment to greater transparency in its budget process.

Even with the additional funding, however, tuition at UC schools is already slated to rise.


Thank You Mr Jackson and Campus Reform.

UCLA Course Blames 'Car Culture' For 'Spatial Injustice'

Always nice to check in on just how far Out of their own minds the crowd who fostered Psychiatry's Illuminati U in SF have gotten.

campusreform
Toni Airaksinen New York Campus Correspondent Jul 03, 2017 at 2:31 PM EDT

A course being offered this summer at UCLA aims to teach students how "car culture" and other factors produce "spatial injustice" in Los Angeles.

The five-credit course fulfills graduation requirements in both Diversity and Social Analysis.

The University of California-Los Angeles is offering a technology class this summer examining how “car culture” contributes to “spatial injustice.”

The course, “LA Tech City: Digital Technologies and Spatial Injustice,” will be offered through the UCLA Digital Humanities department and will be taught by Professor Todd Presner and Professor Dana Cuff.

"The automobile has provided differential and territorial access to particular segments of [the] population."

“Students will investigate spatial justice and injustice in the multi-ethnic city through the lens of three thematic technologies,” the syllabus states, listing cars and highways, the Internet, and film and media as factors that contribute to spatial injustice.

[RELATED: CU-Boulder to offer ‘social justice living environment’]

While Professor Presner declined to comment, he referred Campus Reform to the definition of “spatial injustice” by Edward Soja, who laments the “production of unjust geographies and spatial structures of privilege” within cities, which he argues can be “aggravated further by racism, patriarchy, heterosexual bias.”

Rojas argues that while the inner-city working poor “depend on a more flexible bus network given their multiple and multi-locational job households,” as compared to “the relatively wealthy suburban population” in Los Angeles, “the accumulation of locational decisions in a capitalist economy tends to lead to the redistribution of real income in favor of the rich over the poor.”

During the first week of class, students will learn how “roads and highways have contributed to racial and economic segregation” in Los Angeles because “the automobile has provided differential and territorial access” to “particular segments” of the city’s population, while other segments were displaced to make room for new infrastructure.

The following lesson will focus on “mapping the divided city” to show how “roads operate as indicators of racial and economic segregation.”

[RELATED: CA Dems propose free tuition funded by tax on millionaires]

The course “will also address topics related to unequal representation in film, including whitewashing, problematic depictions of individuals of specific races and gender, and stereotyping,” the syllabus states, after which the focus will shift toward examining social media data in order to “capture the position of various communities on issues related to the divided city.”

Students will earn five credits for completing the class, which fulfills both diversity and general education requirements for UCLA students.

Neither Professor Cuff nor spokespersons for UCLA responded to requests for comment from Campus Reform.

Thank you Ms Airaksinen and Campus Reform.

UC Santa Barbara Student Group Offers Kit To Test Purity of Illicit Ecstasy Pills

In today's running of the University of California Bulls,
thecollegefix
Corrie Faith Lee - Regent University •June 8, 2017

Swell.

University offers support, promotion for recreational drug screening

A student group at the University of California Santa Barbara recently started providing students with free kits that allows them to “see what’s in the drugs they’ve obtained before they use them,” with the university offering promotion and support for the initiative.

The program was started by Patrick Dohoney, an student senator. Dohoney argues it’s an effort to reduce the number of serious “drug-related emergencies” on campus, according to the campus newspaper The Bottom Line.

The system, which was paid for by a student fundraising effort, allows students to temporarily check out drug testing kits to be used at home. The kits are made to test the purity of the drug MDMA, popularly known as ecstasy. After testing the drugs, the student is required to return the test kit.

“It is very naive to deny the fact that there are students on this campus that are doing hard drugs,” Dohoney told The Bottom Line. Dohoney did not return repeated requests for comment from The College Fix.

UC Santa Barbara is widely known for its party scene, ranking near the top of many “party school” lists over the years.

A campus spokeswoman defended the initiative in an email to The College Fix.

“Over the last few years we have had many conversations with our students about MDMA testing kits and we are very aware of how beneficial these and other safety practices can be for students,” spokeswoman Jackie Kurta told The Fix.

“It is our understanding that a student group on campus has developed an initiative to fund and distribute these testing kits,” Kurta added. “Although the Alcohol and Drug Program will not be providing funding for this initiative, we have offered to collaborate with the students to promote their efforts through our ongoing social media campaigns and outreach programs.”

Kurta also noted that the UC Santa Barbara student group “Life of the Party” would be involved in the promotion of the drug testing kits. Life of the Party advocates for safe alcohol and illegal drug usage among students, advising on its website, for example, that students be cautious when “using illegal drugs or substances that are not prescribed to you.”

One student, a colleague of Dohoney’s, said the test kits were a welcome addition to campus.

“Patrick did have support of the entire Senate and it was not controversial at all,” student senator Izabella Kipnis told The Fix via Facebook message. “Although the use of drugs is not encouraged, the Senate understood that it is better for students who plan to experiment with them to do it in a safe way.”

Though UC Santa Barbara is assisting in the promotion of the drug testing kits, the university does not officially endorse drug use.

The university’s stated policy on drug and substance abuse reads: “Unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, use, or sale of alcohol or of controlled substances by University employees and students… is prohibited.”

MORE: UMich pilot program cracks down on alcohol, drug abuse

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter


Thank You Ms Lee and thecollegefix

Napolitano Staff Accused of Tampering With Audit of State University

And in other news Scientists discover that water is wet.

dailycaller
David Krayden Contributor
3:20 PM 06/08/2017


 
University of California (UC) president Janet Napolitano’s office is under investigation for allegations that her staff tampered with a survey ordered by the state auditor.

According to a story first reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, UC’s board of regents has hired none other than former state Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno as well as a local law firm to investigate the allegations that Napolitano’s office improperly viewed a confidential survey.

Board chairwoman Monica Lozano said Monday that any such interference would have nullified the results of the survey. “Justice Moreno will provide expertise in the areas of fact-finding and neutral evaluation,” she told the Chronicle.

At the root of the controversy is an accusation in a report from state auditor Elaine Howle that says the university was insisting it needed to increase student tuition fees to cover costs while it clandestinely reserved $175 million in savings. The document says that Napolitano’s office inflated the cost of administrating the 10-satellite university complex and actually provided less funding than the official budget indicated.

The investigation was launched just as the state legislature introduced tough new legislation that is designed to bring the law down on anyone who interferes with a state audit with malicious intent, Campus Reform reports.

Howle is now accusing Napolitano’s office of vetting confidential responses that the audit from the university’s administrators.

The San Francisco Chronicle has obtained email transmissions between UC’s head office and its various campuses that would seem to indicate that Napolitano’s staff wanted to see the audit responses before sending them to Howle.

Napolitano testified before California legislators in May that her staff only assessed the responses after they had already been sent to the state auditor. Though she apologized for how the correspondence was managed, she said during her appearance that she “wasn’t involved in the day-to-day, back and forth of the surveys.”


Follow David on Twitter
Tags: Janet Napolitano, University of California


Thank You Mr Krayden and DC.

University of California Regents Party Hearty

frontpagemag
Janet Napolitano’s politburo is corrupt and incompetent as the UC president herself.
May 30, 2017
Lloyd Billingsley


 
 University of California president Janet Napolitano stashed away $175 million in a secret slush fund while publicly beating the drum for tuition and fee increases. Napolitano interfered with state auditors, prompting UC students and workers to call for her arrest and Democratic legislators to demand her resignation. For their part, the UC regents publicly defended Napolitano, and it has now emerged how the regents responded to students and worker protests.

The night of the protest, May 17, CBS News reported, “the regents threw a $15,199 party at San Francisco’s elegant Palace Hotel for 59 people – a $258-a-head event also billed to the university.” Back in January, the night before they voted to raise tuition, the regents hosted a $17,600 banquet, one of many such events in recent years.

While planning to jack up tuition 28 percent in 2014, the regents threw an $8,000 party, and the year before, during a financial crisis, they blew $15,600 on a feast. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Napolitano’s office has reimbursed the regents for more than $225,000 in dinner parties since 2012. What the regents have to celebrate remains unclear to many observers.

State auditor Elaine Howle not only uncovered the president’s $175 million slush fund, she also questioned the performance of the regents in their oversight of Napolitano’s office. The state auditor recommended that the legislature could increase accountability by taking over the regents’ job. True to form, the regents found no fault whatsoever with president Napolitano.

“There has been no criminal activity and no slush funds,” according to regent Sherry Lansing, a former movie executive. She blasted “distortions” in the media, hailed Napolitano’s “wisdom and integrity,” and proclaimed, “her leadership has been incredible.”

Regent Bonnie Reiss, an attorney who produced president Bill Clinton’s 1993 inauguration ceremony, complained of “salacious” newspaper headlines. Press descriptions of a “slush fund,”

Reiss explained, “hurt my heart.”

Regent Norm Pattiz was “delighted when I found out we had a chance to have Janet Napolitano as our president and was “still delighted” after the audit. Last year during a commercial, Pattiz asked television writer Heather McDonald, “Wait a minute — can I hold your breasts?” and referred to his hands as “memory foam.”

It has not emerged whether Pattiz exhibited similar behavior at any of the lavish regents’ parties.

The Daily Bruin, a UC student publication, has described Pattiz as a “porn connoisseur” and called for him to resign. Handyman Pattiz has not done so, and is “still delighted” with Janet Napolitano.

The former Department of Homeland Security boss disputes the $175 million slush fund and is sticking to her guns on the tuition and fee increases. Part of the campus assessment fee, she told the Daily Bruin, goes toward paying off UCPath, an upgrade for the UC payroll system. UCPath was supposed to cost $156 million but after spending $327 million over four years, UC bosses now estimate a final cost of $504 million.

One of president Napolitano’s favorite projects is the UC Davis Firearms Violence Research Center, which will receive its first $5 million on July 1. According to director Garen Wintemute, the Center’s first task will be will be “a survey that looks at who owns guns, why they own them and how they use firearms.” They want “the names,” and Californians have good cause to find this troubling.

As Stephen P. Halbrook noted in Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State,” the Nazis also wanted to know “who owns guns” and they ruthlessly suppressed firearm ownership by disfavored groups. At the University of California, that means conservatives.

As Rachel Alexander showed in “Napolitano Leaving DHS Under Cloud of Suspicion,” Janet Napolitano was “known in Arizona for her backroom deals and ruthless targeting of conservatives, a pattern she continued as DHS chief.” Napolitano released reports singling out conservatives as dangerous extremists, in her view the sort of person citizens should report to the government.

As DHS chief, Napolitano failed to secure the borders and enforce immigration law. As Alexander notes, “Napolitano also enacted a Dream Act-style policy giving young illegal immigrants a reprieve.” She continued that type of policy as president of the University of California, founding and funding the UC Center for Undocumented Student Legal Services, barring campus police from cooperating with federal authorities, and granting illegals in the UC system a $25.2 million aid package running through 2019.

The UC regents were delighted to hire Janet Napolitano and pay her $750,000 a year, more than the President of the United States, and more than three times the $200,000 she bagged as DHS boss. Like porn connoisseur Pattiz, they are still delighted with Napolitano’s “incredible leadership” even after revelations of her $175 million slush fund and as Democrats call for her to resign.

After approving steep tuition and fee hikes, the regents celebrate by throwing a $15,000 bash in San Francisco. Embattled UC students take note: your once-great university is now a big-time party school and the regents are on permanent spring break. 



Thank You Mr Billingsley and FPM.

Arrest Napolitano! UC President Must Go!

frontpagemag

University of California protesters speak the truth to power.
May 25, 2017
Lloyd Billingsley



Dozens of University of California students and workers peacefully assembled at a recent UC regents meeting in San Francisco, but it wasn’t to protest Milo Yiannopoulos, David Horowitz, Ann Coulter or even Donald Trump. The target was Janet Napolitano, president of the University of California.

“Arrest Napolitano! Arrest Napolitano!” and “Janet Must Go!” were the rallying cries, and along with their placards the protesters brought along some facts.

While beating the drum for tuition and fee hikes, president Napolitano has amassed a secret slush fund of $175 million, which she used to shower perks on already overpaid staff and even to renovate the houses of UC chancellors. That’s why the protesters wanted her arrested. The state auditor reported that Napolitano’s office “intentionally interfered” with their investigators, which could be construed as an obstruction of justice.

“Shame on you Janet Napolitano,” said UC Santa Barbara graduate student Hannah Kagan-Moore during the public comment. “Shame on the office of the president for padding your own pockets!” Other students called the regents “hypocrites” and “greedy,” but the regents weren’t having it.

Regents chair Monica Lozano, formerly of U.S. Hispanic Media, talked of “changing the culture” but was uncritical of Napolitano. “There has been no criminal activity and no slush funds,” responded regent Sherry Lansing. The former movie executive blasted “distortions” in the media, hailed Napolitano’s “wisdom and integrity,” and proclaimed, “her leadership has been incredible.”

Regent Bonnie Reiss, an attorney who produced president Bill Clinton’s 1993 inauguration ceremony, complained of “salacious” newspaper headlines. “Seeing how some in the press have characterized it as a slush fund or a secret fund hurt my heart,” Reiss lamented.

UC regent Norm Pattiz was “delighted when I found out we had a chance to have Janet Napolitano as our president.” Pattiz was “still delighted” after the audit, but protesting students might have wondered why he was still a University of California regent.

Last year, during a commercial for a memory-foam bra, Pattiz asked television writer Heather McDonald, “Wait a minute — can I hold your breasts?” and referred to his hands as “memory foam.” In another audio clip Pattiz offered critiques of pornographic films and that got the attention of the student press.

“If you want a porn connoisseur making decisions about our school’s academic, administrative and yes, sexual harassment policies, then by all means, Pattiz should remain a regent,” editorialized the Daily Bruin. “But if he has any remaining respect for himself and the institution he works for, he must resign.”

It didn’t happen. The eager Pattiz with the memory-foam hands is still a UC regent and “still delighted” with president Janet Napolitano.

In similar style, Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, also a UC regent, criticized the audit as too strict and opined that president Janet Napolitano was doing a good job. Media sycophants also had the president’s back.

“Nothing in her long career or her UC performance indicates that she’s dishonest or incompetent,” wrote Shawn Hubler of the Sacramento Bee. Napolitano’s critics need to “dial down the hostility, give some benefit of the doubt and remember the bigger picture. Like the UC system itself, a UC president of her stature is something to value and it would be too bad if California failed to appreciate that.”

That was a stark contrast to the response from legislators. Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, a Torrance Democrat, said he was “very disturbed” that Napolitano’s office had interfered with the auditors, and several Democrats announced plans for a bill to make such interference a crime.

“President Napolitano is not worthy of the public’s trust,” explained Democratic assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva. “It’s time she resigned.” Other legislators were curious whether Napolitano had already committed crimes and should be subpoenaed.

Attorney general Xavier Becerra, currently occupied with the protection of illegal foreign nationals, did not weigh in on the subject. Governor Jerry Brown threatened to withhold money but did not criticize Napolitano directly, nor call for her to step down. As it happens, the $175 million slush fund was not the UC president’s first caper against California students.

As the San Diego Union-Tribune reported, Napolitano lowered admission requirements for out-of-state applicants “while denying admission to nearly 4,300 qualified Californians — using out-of-state students’ higher tuition rates to avoid any belt-tightening during the state’s revenue recession.” The UC regents responded by attacking state auditor Elaine Howle’s report on this practice and defending Napolitano. The regents now ignore the $175 million slush fund, the obstruction of auditors, and hail the UC boss as an incredible leader.

Janet Napolitano got her start spearheading the smear campaign against the African American Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. The former Arizona governor and Department of Homeland Security chief is a non-educator and has never produced anything of scholarly interest. The prominent Democrat was a purely political hire and with Donald Trump in the White House she serves, in effect, as California’s very own female president. Napolitarian rule quashes free speech, shirks accountability, and shows utter contempt for the rights and welfare of students.

The UC boss is looking out for number one, as the late Frank Zappa would say, and students, workers and taxpayers aren’t even number two. So the protesters have good reason to cry “Arrest Napolitano!” and “Janet must go!” This time they are speaking the truth to power. 


Thank You Mr Billingsley and FPM.

Black Students At UCLA Issue Ultimatum Demanding $40 Million, Free Housing, and 'Safe Spaces'

Imagine the uproar if these were white students

weaselzippers



UCLA has simply become a playpen of radical, leftist black separatists and other assorted lunatics.

Via Heat Street:

The Afrikan [sic] Student Union at the University of California has issued a list of demands– which include a $40 million endowment, their own “safe spaces” on campus, and mandatory “cultural awareness training” for all students — as compensation for what they call racially insensitive incidents. The demands, listed in an open letter, cite different “racial attacks” on campus.

“Black students at UCLA are consistently made the targets of racist attacks by fellow students, faculty, and administration,” the Afrikan Student Union writes in their eight-point ultimatum. “Unfortunately, on April 30, 2017, a photo was released depicting the USAC [student government] President holding gang signs.”

(The white student body president caught making the gang sign apologized profusely, saying “this is a result of my white privilege.”)

ASU goes on citing racist stickers that were posted on campus back in 2015.

(One such sticker listed the criminal rap sheet of Freddie Gray, the black man who died in Baltimore police custody in 2015. Another sticker said “If only Freddie Gray had followed the damn law, he’d still be alive,” and another said “Stop whining and start following the goddamn law”).

Another example of racism given by the ASU was a “Kanye Western” theme party held in 2015 during which attendees dressed in baggy clothes or wore padded bottoms to look like Kim Kardashian.

“Since nothing has been done in recent years, the Afrikan Student Union is DEMANDING that UCLA administrators work with black students towards the development of a more positive campus climate,” the group’s open letter says.

Keep reading…

Thank You Heat Street and Huck Funn

Yale: Social Psychologist 'Diversity' Dean Who Blasts "White Trash" Placed On Leave, Pt II

campus reform

Autumn Price Virginia Campus Correspondent @AutumnDawnPrice Today at 2:32 PM EDT



Yale University has placed one of its deans on leave after learning of a series of racist comments attributed to her Yelp account.

In one review, June Chu referred to fellow patrons at a local restaurant as “white trash” and “low class folks,” while in another she complained of “barely educated morons trying to manage snack orders for the obese."

Yale University has placed one of its deans on leave for the rest of the academic year after discovering a series of racist and offensive comments on her Yelp account.

June Chu was appointed Dean of Pierson College in May of 2016, and an investigation by The Yale Daily News reveals that throughout her tenure she has periodically left reviews of local establishments in which she makes disparaging comments about white people and the poor.

“These reviews make it clear how Dean Chu thinks about people who are different from her.”

On one occasion, according to screenshots of her reviews, Chu referred to fellow patrons at a local restaurant as “white trash” and “low class folks,” while in another instance she perplexingly praised a movie theater for its lack of “sketchy crowds,” despite its location in a relatively affluent area.

[RELATED: Spurned union plans to disrupt Yale’s commencement ceremony]

The reviews were noticed by Dean of Student Affairs Camille Lizarribar, who brought them to the attention of Yale College Dean Jonathan Holloway, but the Daily News reports that screenshots of the provocative posts had been circulating among students for months beforehand.

Chu sent an email to Pierson students Saturday apologizing for those particular comments, which were the only ones of which Holloway had been informed, but the Daily News contends that several other of Chu’s reviews are also deserving of scrutiny.

In one of the many spiteful reviews discovered on her account, Chu rants about having to “remain in line with all the other idiots” at a movie theater, complaining of the “barely educated morons trying to manage snack orders for the obese.”

Holloway nonetheless commended Chu for being “very honest” in her email to the college community, saying he believes that she is “terribly sorry” and has “learned from this,” and noting that he has decided not to ask for her resignation.

“I have learned a lot this semester about the power of words and about the accountability that we owe one another,” Chu wrote in her apology message. “My remarks were wrong. There are no two ways about it. Not only were they insensitive in matters related to class and race; they demean the values to which I hold myself and which I offer as a member of this community.”

[RELATED: Judge fears Yale has forgotten commitment to free expression]

Many Pierson students, however, were far less impressed than Holloway with Chu’s mea culpa, saying they’ve lost respect for her not only because of the offensive nature of her comments, but also because she demonstrated such poor judgment in making them.

Kelsang Dolma, for instance, told the Daily News that the comments “floored” her.

“It is always so refreshing to see an Asian American woman in leadership positions, and many of my female and POC friends were eager to see what she would do for us,” Dolma said. “I look forward to continue having [Chu] as my dean, but this incident has left me and other Piersonites disillusioned.”

One anonymous student argued that it was “inappropriate for someone in her position” to make such “demeaning and offensive” statements, pointing out that “These reviews make it clear how Dean Chu thinks about people who are different from her, and how she feels about New Haven, the city all of us call home for a few years.”

[RELATED: Yale administrators succumb to anti-speech activists]

“I will never be able to look at her in the same way,” another anonymous student concurred. “Dean Chu is trained in human development and psychology so should clearly understand the gravity of her actions, yet the fact that she would put such things on the Internet shows that she really should not be in a position of advising students.”

Tom Conroy, the Director of the Office of Public Affairs & Communications, told Campus Reform that he didn’t have “anything to add to the announcement today by the Pierson Head of College that she was placed on leave.”

Campus Reform reached out to Chu for comment, but did not receive a response in time for publication.

Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @AutumnDawnPrice






From her bio, at the end of our first post on Madame "White Trash" 


Chu, according to her Pierson biography, has a Ph.D. in social psychology from the University of California-Davis. She joined the college after serving as an assistant dean of undergraduate students at Dartmouth College. During high school, Chu also worked in a summer program at the Yale Daily News, the same student newspaper that exposed her controversial reviews.


And somebody actually did something about this? 

Way Cool.

The Top 10 College Administrations Most Friendly To Terrorists And Hostile To The 1st Amendment

frontpagemag

Targeting the nation’s worst offenders.
May 15, 2017
Sara Dogan
 


Over the past two weeks, the David Horowitz Freedom Center has named 10 prestigious college and university campuses to its list of the “Top 10 College Administrations Most Friendly to Terrorists and Hostile to the First Amendment.” These campuses provide financial and institutional support to terrorist-linked campus organizations such as the Hamas-funded hate-group Students for Justice in Palestine while actively suppressing speech exposing the truth about Israel’s terrorist adversaries and their allies in the United States.

The Freedom Center placed posters exposing the links between the terrorist group Hamas and SJP on each of these ten campuses, both to inform students about the allies to terror in their midst and to challenge these campus administrations to do what they so far have refused to do—to uphold the First Amendment and promote free expression even when doing so means facing down radical students and faculty who demand otherwise.

Already our campaign has yielded positive results. Mainstream Jewish publication JWeekly.com reported on the Freedom Center's poster campaign, quoting David Horowitz and noting that San Francisco State University President Les Wong has come under fire recently for failing to adequately protect Jewish students on campus.

Wong himself has also responded to the campaign in a letter to entire SFSU community (which was reprinted at Jweekly.com) noting that "This week I encountered both the re-emergence of posters on campus attacking and condemning the work of Palestinian activists and their supporters." Wong went on to state, "I believe it is the fundamental role of a university to engage differing viewpoints and to evaluate their merits and shortcomings. It is this belief that compels me to unequivocally reject the concept of 'anti-normalization' outright." SJP as an organization rejects all "normalization" of relations with pro-Israel groups. By making this declaration, Wong is taking an important stand against at least one aspect of SJP's genocidal agenda.

The full report on the ten campus administrations “Most Friendly to Terrorists and Hostile to the First Amendment” follows below.

Introduction:

Of all the disturbing trends to have emerged on college campuses in recent years, perhaps the most ominous is the support universities offer to terrorist-linked campus organizations such as the Hamas-funded hate-group Students for Justice in Palestine while actively suppressing speech critical of Israel’s terrorist adversaries and their allies in the United States. Administrators at San Francisco State University, UCLA, the University of Chicago, Tufts University, Brooklyn College and other schools have actively supported organizations supporting terrorists and their activities while suppressing their critics.

Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) has emerged as the leading pro-terrorist, anti-Jewish organization in America, and the driving force behind the recent surge of anti-Semitism on American campuses. SJP is the chief promoter of the Hamas-inspired and funded “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” (BDS) campaign in America, an effort to weaken and ultimately destroy the Jewish state. SJP also stages annual “Israeli Apartheid” hate weeks on campuses across the nation which feature pro-Hamas speakers and “apartheid walls” in public spaces on campus displaying pro-Hamas, anti-Semitic propaganda. SJP also creates mock checkpoints and die-ins that obstruct student movements on campus, disrupts pro-Israel campus events, threatens Jewish and pro-Israel speakers, and has physically assaulted Jewish students.

As described in the Freedom Center’s recent pamphlet, Students for Justice in Palestine: A Campus Front for Hamas Terrorists, SJP’s pro-terror campaign is guided and funded through a Hamas front called American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), whose principals are former officers of the Holy Land Foundation and other Islamic “charities” previously convicted of funneling money to Hamas. AMP was created by Hatem Bazian, a pro-Hamas professor at UC Berkeley who is also the co-founder of SJP.

In recent testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Jonathan Schanzer, a terrorism finance analyst for the United States Department of the Treasury from 2004-2007, described AMP as “arguably the most important sponsor and organizer for Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), which is the most visible arm of the BDS campaign on campuses in the United States” and explained that “AMP spent $100,000 on campus activities in 2014 alone.”

The following report chronicles ten of the worst collegiate offenders in this category of campuses that support anti-Israel terrorists even when their rhetoric and propaganda cross the line into hate speech while rejecting speech critical of the perpetrators and promoters of terrorism.

(Campuses are listed in alphabetical order)
1. Brandeis University
2. Brooklyn College (CUNY)
3. Saint Louis University
4. San Francisco State University
5. Tufts University
6. University of California, Berkeley
7. University of California, Los Angeles
8. University of Chicago
9. University of Minnesota
10. Vassar College

Brandeis University: Campus Administration

Brandeis University, located in a suburb of Boston, Massachusetts, is notable for being one of America’s few elite universities to be founded by Jews and is named for Louis B. Brandeis, the first Jewish justice on the Supreme Court. In recent years, Brandeis has been conspicuous for a more disturbing reason—as an academic center that is uniquely welcoming to pro-terrorist speech and ideology directed against Israel while showing extreme hostility towards those who oppose Israel’s terrorist adversaries.

Members of Brandeis’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine have hosted numerous events featuring speakers that defend anti-Israel terrorism and the genocidal Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. Among these are radical professor Noam Chomsky who gave a speech describing Israel’s actions towards Palestine as “vicious, brutal and criminal” and claimed that Israel “is alone in denying” its “illegal occupation of territories.”

In April 2015, the Brandeis administration selected former U.S. Ambassador Thomas Pickering to be honored as the university’s commencement speaker. Known for his extreme anti-Israel views, Pickering has written that Israel has conducted a “half-century-long occupation” of Palestine that is tantamount to “the permanent subjugation and disenfranchisement of a people to which Israel refuses to grant citizenship in the Jewish state.”

In 2014, a Jewish student at Brandeis, Daniel Mael, exposed a secret faculty listserve where more than 90 left-wing Brandeis faculty exchanged radical views. Some of the listserve’s participants promoted Hamas propaganda while espousing anti-Semitic comments and expressing hatred of Israel. Professor Donald Hindley, for instance, referred to the Jewish state as “The Vile, Terrorist Israeli Government,” in a post about the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers by Hamas terrorists.

Hindley also sarcastically wrote: “Zionist olive trees grow wondrously on Palestinian corpses…” and compared an event challenging the anti-Semitic BDS movement to “Germany in the later 1930s with everyone at least a Nazi sympathizer.”

Brandeis sociology professor Gordon Fellman, meanwhile, wrote on the listserve seeking signatures for an open letter to “end the illegal occupation in Palestine.” According to the letter, “the government of Israel, having provoked the firing of rockets by its rampage through the West Bank, is now using that response as the pretext for an aerial assault on Gaza which has already cost scores of lives.”

When Brandeis University president Fredrick Lawrence condemned these statements as “abhorrent”( but took no official action against the professors who made them), some faculty who participated in the listserve, along with the Brandeis English Department, condemned his comments and sought a faculty forum on freedom of speech on campus.

While welcoming anti-Israel and pro-Hamas speech on campus, Brandeis has also exhibited hostility towards those who are critical of Islamic terrorism. In April 2014, under pressure from students and faculty, the Brandeis administration acted to withdraw an honorary degree that had been offered to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born women’s rights activist and critic of radical Islam who has condemned the mistreatment of women in Muslim countries, and especially the practice of female genital mutilation. Eighty-seven Brandeis faculty members signed a petition citing Ali’s “extreme Islamophobic beliefs” as a reason why the honorary degree should be rescinded. Showcasing the university’s blatant hypocrisy, Brandeis had previously awarded an honorary degree to playwright Tony Kushner, who has a long history of anti-Semitic statements, among them the claim that “The biggest supporters of Israel are the most repulsive members of the Jewish community.”

Brandeis also failed to take action when SJP members disrupted a university panel featuring six members of the Israeli Knesset. The SJP activists repeatedly yelled the epithet “war criminals” at the panel participants and attempted to distribute fake warrants calling for their arrest.

For its history of repeatedly welcoming anti-Israel and pro-terror speakers and protests on campus while allowing those who would present opposing views to be silenced, the Brandeis administration makes our list of Administrations Most Friendly to Terrorists and Hostile to the First Amendment.



Brooklyn College: Michelle J.Anderson, President

At Brooklyn College, President Michelle Anderson responded to posters protesting the links between the campus chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine and Hamas by tearing them down and denouncing their sponsor, the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Anderson emphasized that Brooklyn College’s status as a public university and its obligation to uphold the First Amendment did not in her view extend to speech she considered, without proof or substantiation, “hateful” or “bullying.”

President Anderson failed to address the posters’ central claim that Students for Justice in Palestine is funded by the terrorist organization Hamas, and exists to spread Hamas’s genocidal propaganda against Israel and the Jews. Instead, she cited the widely-discredited smear site of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as the basis for her criticism of the Freedom Center.

Anderson’s response included lofty passages about the importance of free speech and intellectual diversity on a college campus including this one: “Academic freedom not only prevents the suppression of dissident views; it also forces us to confront those whose beliefs are antithetical to our own. The opportunity to have one’s beliefs challenged, to reflect, and to consider change is the very purpose of a university. Free speech, debate, and the open exchange of ideas are the oxygen of our existence on this campus. We must engage.”

Yet she exempted the Freedom Center from these protections by calling its posters “hate speech” – which in any case is constitutionally protected – and defended her decision to tear them down with the following reasoning: “The images and words were frightening and hostile to both supporters of SJP and advocates of free speech on campus, including many Jews. In particular, they targeted individual SJP leaders with the aim of bullying them and making them vulnerable to additional harassment or worse.”

Anderson’s defense of SJP illustrates the intellectual double-standards accepted by administration officials at Brooklyn College. She claims that SJP’s hate speech – in particular its genocidal claims that Israel is an “apartheid state,” and the historical absurdity that Gaza terrorists are “freedom fighters” - are protected speech under the First Amendment while the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s well documented revelation that SJP is promoting Hamas propaganda lies is not.

Brooklyn College SJP has posted articles and videos online defending terrorism including an advertisement titled “The Third Intifada” on its Facebook page. It has hosted speakers promoting the Hamas-inspired Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, and even staged an event to publicize its refusal to enter a dialogue with pro-Israel organizations and students. And a gang of 10 anti-Israel activists stormed a campus faculty meeting in February 2016, calling one faculty member a “Zionist pig” and issuing demands for “Zionists off campus.”

Anderson admits that “in years past, some have felt offended by SJP’s protests and have asked the Brooklyn College administration to ban the student group.” But then adds sanctimoniously, “We cannot.” But when given an opportunity to actually defend “dissident views”—which on the campus of Brooklyn College includes the view that SJP is a pawn of anti-Jewish terrorists—Anderson’s First Amendment concerns suddenly disappear.



Saint Louis University: Campus Administration

As the only Catholic university on our list, it would be understandable if St. Louis University exercised a somewhat greater degree of involvement in the selection of speakers who appeared on campus than its public counterparts to ensure that such events are compatible with the Catholic faith. But in fact the administration of St. Louis University is one of the most shameless promoters of anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish Islamic hate mongers. It has welcomed campus speakers and organizations that promote Islamic supremacism and support the anti-Israel terror group Hamas while defaming pro-Israel speakers as racist and Islamophobic and banning them from campus. In recent years, it has hosted events designed to indoctrinate students in Hamas propaganda and train them to support anti-Israel terrorism.


In 2012, Saint Louis University hosted a three-day training and strategy conference for the U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation, formerly named the International Solidarity Movement, a hate group that spreads Hamas propaganda and promotes the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel. SLU also promoted the BDS movement at a 2011 event held at the Busch Student Center called “An Introduction to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement: Nonviolent Resistance to Stop the Israeli Occupation of the Palestinian Territories.” The event featured Fulbright scholar Sandra Samaan Tamari, a member of the Saint Louis Palestine Solidarity Committee.

In 2015, the university hosted a seminar by a group named #MyJihad which was formed by Ahmed Rehab, the executive director of the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization with extensive ties to the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood network. The seminar aimed to whitewash the concept of jihad for American audiences.

But while repeatedly opening its doors to Hamas sympathizers, SLU has taken extreme measures to ban speech and organizations critical of anti-Israel terrorists on campus. In October 2009, Freedom Center founder and CEO David Horowitz was invited to speak at SLU by the campus chapters of the College Republicans and the Young America’s Foundation about “Islamo-Fascism Awareness and Civil Rights.” But administrators told the student organizations sponsoring Horowitz’s appearance that they must either disinvite him or radically alter the format of the event to include a second speaker who would interpret Horowitz’s views in light of “Catholic teachings,” stipulations that had never been placed on appearances by several pro-Hamas speakers who appeared at SLU. Ultimately, school administrators cancelled Horowitz’s speech.

This egregious breach of academic freedom and free speech on campus was widely criticized in academia and beyond. Cary Nelson, national president of the American Association of University Professors, declared in a statement that, “Now that Saint Louis University has cancelled a scheduled October speech by conservative activist David Horowitz, it joins the small group of campuses that are universities in name only.”

More recently, in October 2016, SLU attempted to censor the remarks of retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Allen West who was also invited to speak on campus by a conservative student group. The University forbid students from using the words “radical Islam” on advertisements for the event. One administrator even claimed that West—a veteran of Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom— did not “have experience with radical Islam.” The University then encouraged students to participate in a mass walkout of West’s speech.

For its disturbing pattern of banning speech critical of anti-Israel terrorists and radical Islam while welcoming Hamas supporters to campus, SLU’s administration makes our list of Administrations Most Friendly to Terrorists and Hostile to the First Amendment.


San Francisco State University: Leslie E. Wong, President

San Francisco State University cultivates its reputation as one of the most radical campuses in the nation, known for its disruptive protests and extremist student movements. The anti-Israel movement at SFSU, led by an SJP-surrogate group called the General Union of Palestine Students (GUPS) fits into this tradition. Even in the radicalized world of anti-Israel student organizations, GUPS stands out for its brazen and public Jew hatred.

In April 2016, when Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat appeared on campus, a GUPS mob shouting “Intifada” and chanting “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!,” itself a call for the obliteration of the Jewish state, forced the cancellation of his speech. When SFSU President Leslie Wong called tepidly for an investigation into the protestors who shut down Barkat’s speech, GUPS responded by asserting that this request “criminalize[s] anti-racist speech on campus.”

The former president of GUPS, Mohammad G. Hammad, wrote dozens of social media posts threatening violence to pro-Israel students, Israelis, the IDF and others. He also praised Hamas and the violent Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

During an “emergency rally” held by GUPS at SFSU in December 2013, the phrase “My Heroes Have Always Killed Colonizers” was written with chalk on the concrete stage at Malcolm X Plaza. The same phrase, referring to the Hamas assertion that Jews have colonized Arab Palestine and must be exterminated, was also written on a sign at a display table during the “Edward Said Mural Celebration.”

The faculty advisor for GUPS, Prof. RababAbdulhadi, met with terrorists Leila Khaled and Sheikh Raed Salah during a university-funded trip to the Middle East. (Khaled is a convicted hijacker and a member of the terrorist organization, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Sheikh Raed Salah has been repeatedly jailed on charges of incitement to terrorist violence.) Abdulhadi also helped to broker a formal collaboration between SFSU and An-Najah National University in Palestine, which is known for its recruitment of students as cadre for Hamas and as suicide bombers.

Despite these many incidents, the General Union of Palestine Students (GUPS) remains an organization in good standing at SFSU. After it disrupted Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat’s speech, SFSU President Wong initially called for an open investigation of the incident, but ultimately placed the blame on campus administrators—not the student protestors—writing, “It makes exceptionally clear that the responsibility for the inadequate response prior to, during and following the event falls squarely on the shoulders of San Francisco State University administrators. On April 6, we failed our students — both the event attendees and the protesters — through multiple inactions.”

But while exonerating GUPS for its attack on Barkat, President Wong immediately attacked the David Horowitz Freedom Center and threatened legal action when it placed posters on campus exposing the links between SJP and Hamas, and criticizing SFSU Professor Rabab Abdulhadi for her support of anti-Israel terrorists.

“Flyers were posted by an outside extremist group in numerous locations, singling out one of our faculty members, our students and vandalizing our campus,” Wong wrote in a letter addressed to the entire campus community. “We know that this group is not affiliated with San Francisco State University.”

He continued, “Let me be clear, this is not an issue of free speech; this is bullying behavior that is unacceptable and will not be tolerated on our campus. A line has been crossed, and we are investigating any legal recourse we have with the perpetrators.”

For his repeated failure to censure SJP for its violation of campus policy and incitement of violence against Jewish students while castigating speech critical of SJP as “bullying” and threatening legal action against its agents, Wong makes the case for SFSU’s inclusion on the list of campuses most friendly to terrorists and hostile to the First Amendment.


Tufts University: James M. Glaser, Dean of the School of Arts & Sciences, and Jianmin Qu, Dean of the School of Engineering

The campus of Tufts University has repeatedly rolled out the red carpet for supporters of the BDS movement against Israel. In 2014, it hosted the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) National Conference, a secretive event which to which media access was strictly controlled and monitored but according to the conference agenda, instructed attendees on how and when to take “direct action” against supporters of Israel.

Tufts SJP has repeatedly condoned anti-Israel terrorism in its published works and statements and holds an annual “Israeli Apartheid” hate week during which the BDS movement against Israel is promoted. It has also violated campus regulations by distributing mock “eviction notices” to Jewish students in the dorms, which it falsely claims are similar to notices “routinely given to Palestinian families living under oppressive Israeli occupation.” Tufts SJP also attacked and delegitimized the campus pro-Israel group Students Supporting Israel (SSI) by labeling it “literally a hate group.”

No action was taken against SJP, yet when the David Horowitz Freedom Center attempted to hang posters describing SJP’s links to Hamas and its genocidal agenda, three Tufts administrators— Dean of Arts and Sciences James Glaser, Dean of the School of Engineering Jianmin Qu and Dean of Student Affairs Mary Pat McMahon—emailed a statement to the entire Tufts student body, condemning the posters and claiming that they violated the University’s community standards.

“The university will be sending a statement to the poster’s sponsors in order to make clear that such materials are not welcome on our campus,” the email read.




Two of these administrators—Glaser and Qu—followed up this missive with a letter sent directly to the Freedom Center. It read:

We are writing to express our serious concerns regarding the posters placed on the Tufts University campus on October 19, 2016… The posters in question violate our community standards and are not welcome on our campus. We ask that you cease any further actions that violate our community standards and, in the future, that your organization comply with applicable university policies in any interactions with members of the Tufts community or our campus facilities.

After noting SJP’s financial ties to Hamas and the rampant anti-Semitism behind its call for BDS, Freedom Center founder David Horowitz quoted from Tufts’ community standards—which explicitly state “Freedom of expression and inquiry are fundamental to the academic enterprise” to point out that nothing in the Freedom Center’s posters violate those standards.

For its stunning hypocrisy in tearing down posters critical of SJP and Hamas, while allowing SJP to disregard campus regulations, attack Jewish students and violate the University’s rules of civility, Tufts’ administrators deserve to be named among those who are “most friendly to terrorists and hostile to the First Amendment.”

University of California-Berkeley: Nils Gilman, Associate Chancellor

The University of California-Berkeley has a well-deserved reputation for stigmatizing ideas which don’t fit the extreme left-wing, anti-Israel campus culture. Berkeley Associate Chancellor Nils Gilman has epitomized this double-standard by failing to condemn outright calls for terrorism and genocide against the Jews from campus anti-Israel groups while denouncing posters putting forth factual information about Students for Justice in Palestine and its links to Hamas.

In a letter sent to the entire campus community in April 2016, Gilman denounced anti-SJP posters hung on campus by the David Horowitz Freedom Center as “a tactic of harassment and intimidation.” He claimed that UC Berkeley “remains committed to combating all forms of bias and discrimination” and asked the campus community to “use this opportunity to reinforce our values as a campus, and to report any further incidents”—in other words, urging Berkeley’s students and faculty to report any speech that challenges the leftist thought control enforced at Berkeley.

When the Freedom Center again hung posters exposing the truth about SJP at Berkeley in October of 2016, Gilman issued another letter stating that the language in the posters “violates our Principles of Community” and ordered them to be taken down.

The UC-Berkeley Principles of Community which he references state, in part, “We affirm the dignity of all individuals and strive to uphold a just community in which discrimination and hate are not tolerated” and “We are committed to ensuring freedom of expression and dialogue that elicits the full spectrum of views held by our varied communities.”

But by failing to uphold free speech and intellectual diversity, Gilman’s comments in his letters to the Berkeley community violate these Principles. They also degrade the spirit of open discourse and the exploration of all sides of crucial issues which lie at the heart of the mission of the modern liberal arts university.

The campus chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine has not faced similar sanctions despite years of rallies and propaganda displays that directly threaten Jewish and pro-Israel students on campus.

In October 2015, Berkeley’s SJP chapter held a rally to support the “International Day of Action” for Palestine and the BDS movement against Israel at Berkeley’s Sproul Plaza. The Muslim Students Association co-sponsored the event. Speakers and participants chanted pro-terrorist slogans including “Let it be known that we here at Berkeley support the Intifada” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” (The Intifada is the Arabic name for suicide attacks on Jews, and “from the river to the sea” means the obliteration of the Jewish state and its replacement by an Islamic totalitarian regime identical to the one that now exists in Gaza.)

In March 2016, Berkeley SJP held a “Die-in, March, and Speakout for Palestine.” The rally included the display of a large mock “apartheid wall” which featured anti-Israel slogans and pro-terrorist propaganda. One panel of the “apartheid wall” depicted all of Israel replaced with a Palestinian flag, a visual expression of SJP’s calls for the obliteration of the Jewish State.

Such displays of brutal Hamas propaganda—like the hypocrisy of the school’s administrators— are commonplace on the Berkeley campus. Students for Justice in Palestine remains a student organization in good standing while Chancellor Gilman spends his energies condemning one of the only forms of campus speech to offer a different—and more accurate—account of SJP’s aims and alliances. For this reason, Chancellor Nils Gilman and Berkeley deserve their spot on the list of the university administrations “most friendly to terrorists and hostile to the First Amendment.”



University of California-Los Angeles: Jerry Kang, Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion and Gene Block, Chancellor:

UCLA Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Jerry Kang has undergone extreme intellectual and political contortions in defending the UCLA chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) as “an officially recognized student organization, based on political commitments, that is also in good standing” despite SJP’s constant manifestation of Jew hatred on the Los Angeles campus.

In one widely noted expression of the group’s anti Semitism, SJP members illegally questioned student government candidate Rachel Beyda about whether her status as a Jew would bias her decisions on campus matters. It also attempted to create a litmus test for student government candidates by introducing an initiative that would require them to sign a pledge to not take trips to Israel sponsored by pro-Israel organizations.

Such incidents violate UCLA’s Principles of Community which state, in part, “We are committed to ensuring freedom of expression and dialogue, in a respectful and civil manner, on the spectrum of views held by our varied and diverse campus communities.”

Despite his title as the UCLA administrator in charge of Equity, Diversity & Inclusion, Vice Chancellor Kang has ignored SJP’s continual violation of these Principles of Community, disregarding the harassment of Jewish students forced to endure SJP’s mock “apartheid walls” plastered with Hamas propaganda and its rallies decrying the founding of the Jewish state as “Al-nakba” or “the catastrophe.” But when the David Horowitz Freedom Center hung posters on campus exposing SJP’s ties to anti-Israel terror group Hamas, and naming campus activists who had worked to bring about the destruction of the Jewish state, both Kang and UCLA Chancellor Gene Block were quick to condemn them. In an email to the entire 50,000 member UCLA community, Kang said the posters were “designed to shock and terrify,” and accused the Freedom Center of using “the tactic of guilt by association, of using blacklists, of ethnic slander, and sensationalized images engineered to trigger racially-tinged fear.” In a second diatribe, he claimed the posters caused “chilling psychological harm” and “focused, personalized intimidation.”

University Chancellor Gene Block also reacted to the posters by stating “Islamophobic posters appeared on campus, in complete disregard of our Principles of Community and the dignity of our Muslim students. But we can, and we will, do our best to hold ourselves to the standards of integrity, inclusion, fairness and compassion that are the hallmarks of a healthy community.”

Quick to defend SJP and its violent rhetoric, Kang and Block have been missing in action when Jewish students faced intimidation and harassment from anti-Semitic speakers and Hamas propaganda plastered across campus.

In addition to the incidents listed above, UCLA SJP holds an annual “Palestine Awareness Week” on campus featuring speakers who endorse the genocidal BDS movement against Israel. SJP’s 2016 event featured journalist Max Blumenthal, who stated during his address that suicide bombing against Jews is justified by “the occupation” and described Palestinian terrorists as “young men who took up arms to fight their occupier.” He also compared Israel to the Islamic state, calling it “‘JSIL,’ the Jewish State in Israel and the Levant.” Another speaker, Miko Peled, also defended Palestinian terrorism, renaming it “a struggle for freedom and justice and equality,” and describing terrorists as “very brave Palestinians who are engaged in fighting this brutal occupation.” Peled also described Jews as analogous to Hitler, calling Jewish soldiers “young little Jewish gestapos,” and further accused Israel of “massive, violent, brutal oppression,” “genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” and of being “a colonialist, apartheid, racist system.”

Nor is such hate speech directed at Israel and Jews restricted to SJP events. In 2015, UCLA’s Center for Near Eastern Studies held a conference on “Palestine and Pedagogy” during which speakers compared Israel to the Nazis, praised anti-Israel terrorism and supported the BDS movement against Israel. UC Irvine Professor and Director of the UC Institute for Humanities Research Theo Goldberg accused Israel of practicing “eliminationist racism” similar to the Nazis’ and claimed Israelis view Palestinians as “vermin, cockroaches, rats, snakes…that take boots on the ground to get rid of.” Goldberg further charged that Israelis make “snuff films” featuring the deaths of innocent Palestinians which go viral resulting in “an orgasm” for Israelis. Meanwhile UC Riverside Professor David Lloyd called Israel “a colonial Zionist project that has become a…nightmare, ever more rigid and oppressive” and endorsed the right of Palestinians to take up arms against Israel.

This hate speech was ignored by Kang and Block and other appeasement-minded UCLA administrators.

Kang’s support for SJP and its pro-terrorism agenda was also evident in his lack of support for second year law student Milan Chatterjee, president of the Graduate Student Association (GSA) at UCLA. When he attempted to keep the GSA out of the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction controversy on campus, Chatterjee was subjected to such severe harassment by SJP and Kang that he resigned. He later announced he was leaving UCLA to continue his law degree elsewhere because of the “hostile and unsafe campus climate” created by groups supporting the BDS movement on campus in concert with the UCLA administration.

Chatterjee wrote in a letter to UCLA Chancellor Gene Block: “It is unfortunate, indeed, that your administration has not only allowed BDS organizations and student activists to freely engage in intimidation of students who do not support the BDS agenda, but has decided to affirmatively engage in discriminatory practices of its own against those same students. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, the fact is that the UCLA campus has become a hostile and unsafe environment for students, Jewish students and non-Jewish, who choose not to support the BDS movement, let alone support the state of Israel.”

In comments made to the media, Chatterjee also stated, “I filed a complaint with the office of Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Jerry Kang, who took zero action and refused to investigate... This is very disturbing behavior and shows a double standard at play at UCLA. If SJP files a complaint, they will bend over backwards. If it’s anyone else, they don’t care.”

In their zeal to defend pro-terrorist campus organizations like SJP, both Kang and Block have not hesitated to violate the First Amendment rights of their critics. The taxpayers of the state of California would be well advised to take note of their actions.

University of Chicago: Campus administration

The University of Chicago has long prided itself on producing independent thinkers and encouraging a certain iconoclasm among its students and faculty. In the fall of 2016, the university’s dean of students, John Ellison, engendered a national controversy by making an explicit statement in support of free speech in a letter to incoming students: “Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called trigger warnings, we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial and we do not condone the creation of intellectual safe spaces where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.”

It seemed that Ellison was bravely sailing against the winds of political correctness, but recent events at the University of Chicago suggest that this cherished commitment to free speech applies to students and campus organizations that seek Israel’s destruction, but not to those who defend the Jewish state and expose the terrorist connections of its enemies.

In the past few years, Chicago has witnessed the development of a highly active BDS campus movement, U of C Divest, which is currently supported by more than 20 student organizations on campus. In the spring of 2016, U of C Divest succeeded in passing a resolution endorsing BDS in Chicago’s student government. During the debate over the resolution, an amendment supporting the continued self-determination of the Jewish people and the existence of Israel was rejected, indicating that the coalition’s goals align with Hamas’s aims of destroying the Jewish state.

The University of Chicago has brought numerous pro-Hamas speakers to campus. In October 2015, UC-SJP hosted BDS movement founder Omar Barghouti for a speech on “BDS and the Ethical Obligation to End Complicity in Oppression.” During his address, Barghouti labeled Israel a “savage unrepairable society” that conducts “ethnic cleansing.” He praised terrorism against Israel’s Jews, stating that “resistance” is a legitimate response to “the violence of an oppressive system.” Several UC organizations and departments co-sponsored Barghouti’s address including the Global Voices Program – University of Chicago International House, the Pozen Center for Human Rights, the Department of Political Science, and the Department of International Studies.

Later that same month, UC-SJP held a panel titled “Jerusalem in Crisis: Insider Perspectives on the Violence in Palestine-Israel” as part of the “UChicago Israeli Apartheid Week.” One speaker at the event, a graduate student member of SJP, stated: “Palestinian violent resistance against the violent Israeli military is always justified; it is the equivalent of biting the hand that is trying to choke you to death.”

In February 2016, a throng of angry protestors interrupted and threatened a Palestinian human rights activist, Bassam Eid, who came to speak on U. Chicago’s campus about the oppression of Palestinians by the theocratic terrorist regimes in the West Bank and Gaza. SJP members and supporters on campus were upset that Eid’s remarks were critical of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and failed to condemn Israel’s “occupation” of Palestine. In the video of Eid’s speech a young man can be seen screaming in Arabic: “I’m going to destroy this place!” and “I’m going to kill this motherf*****!” and “Wait until you go to your car!” Eid later declared himself to be “terrified” by the ordeal.

The University of Chicago has put forth a “Statement on Principles of Free Expression” which states that it “is an institution fully committed to the creation of knowledge across the spectrum of disciplines and professions, firm in its belief that a culture of intense inquiry and informed argument generates lasting ideas, and that the members of its community have a responsibility both to challenge and to listen.”

An examination of recent events on campus reveals that these principles are not applied without bias. SJP continues to function as a student organization in good standing at the University of Chicago, despite inviting speakers to campus that have engaged in anti-Semitic attacks and expressed Hamas propaganda which threatens the existence of the Jewish state. Yet, when the David Horowitz Freedom Center worked with activists to hang posters on campus which proposed a more truthful narrative revealing the financial and organizational connections between Hamas and Students for Justice in Palestine through a Hamas-front calling itself American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), University spokesperson Marielle Sainvilus said: “While the University of Chicago encourages the free exchange of diverse ideas and perspectives concerning a wide range of issues, these flyers are defamatory and inconsistent with our values and policies.”

For their blatant hypocrisy in allowing and defending speech supporting Hamas while vilifying speech critical of that anti-Israel terror group, the University of Chicago administration makes our list of Administrations Most Friendly to Terrorists and Hostile to the First Amendment.



University of Minnesota: Danita Brown Young, Vice Provost for Student Affairs and Dean of Students

Residing in America’s heartland, the University of Minnesota is not an obvious choice to make the list of campuses supporting terrorism and expressing hostility to the First Amendment. But the university’s administrators have been as supportive of the hate group Students for Justice in Palestine as schools with more radical pedigrees while also condemning speech critical of the Hamas-funded organization as “hateful” and “repulsive.”

In November of 2015, for instance, SJP at Minnesota, along with the Anti-War Committee, disrupted a talk by Hebrew University professor Moshe Halbertal, co-author of the Israeli Defense Forces’ code of ethics which is titled “Protecting Civilians: Moral Challenges of Asymmetric Warfare.” A crowd of pro-Palestine students took turns shouting epithets at Halbertal, preventing him from being heard or carrying on with his address. Chants from the protestors included “These are massacres, not mistakes! These are war crimes! Free, free Palestine!” and “Occupation is a crime, free, free Palestine!”

The University took no action against the student organizations responsible for shutting down Halbertal’s appearance.

UMN is also home to a strident coalition calling itself “UMN Divest” which spreads disinformation about Israel in an effort to persuade the student government to pass a Hamas-inspired resolution encouraging the University to divest its investments from Israeli companies.

UMN SJP has also repeatedly constructed mock “apartheid walls” on campus plastered with propaganda supporting the Hamas narrative, including propaganda maps claiming to show the Jewish colonization and takeover of Arab Palestine (a nation which has never existed). SJP also held a “die-in” on campus accompanied by a narration that demonized Israel, claiming that it is responsible for the “extrajudicial murders of Palestinian youths” and “atrocities against Palestinians.”

The University of Minnesota administration has continually provided legitimacy and resources to SJP which allow them to spread Hamas propaganda on campus. Yet when the Horowitz Freedom Center attempted to hang posters critical of SJP and the BDS movement on campus, Dean of Students Danita Brown Young immediately condemned them as “repulsive” and “not consistent with our University values or commitment to an inclusive campus environment.”

In a saccharine letter to SJP about these posters, Brown Young wrote: “I am sorry for the hurt and fear this has caused you and the members of your group…This repulsive action weighs heavily on us…. We as a community do NOT accept this incident and we must collectively support each other in our time of need.”

For her support of SJP’s hate campaign against Israel and the Jews while condemning a rare instance of speech critical of that campaign, UMN Dean of Students Danita Brown Young makes the case for Minnesota’s inclusion on the list of university administrations most friendly to terrorists and hostile to the First Amendment.



Vassar College: John Chenette, Interim President, and Ed Pittman, Associate Dean of Campus Life and Diversity

A small liberal arts college located in the quiet town of Poughkeepsie, New York, Vassar College has for several years been home to a radical, anti-Semitic, pro-Hamas student movement against the Jews and Israel.

In March, 2016, the Vassar Student Association passed a resolution supporting the BDS movement against Israel by a vote of 15-7. The Amcha Initiative, an organization that tracks anti-Semitism on campus, gives insight into the atmosphere as the BDS resolution was debated: “A Jewish student who attended the BDS vote outlined antisemitic activity by pro-BDS students during the meeting, stating, ‘One Jewish student talked about how the BDS campaign had invoked every anxiety nightmare she had ever had. She was crying as she spoke. Pro-BDS students laughed at her.’…Another Jewish student talked about Israel’s founding in the wake of the Holocaust. He was immediately accused of using the Holocaust as a political tool to justify the ‘genocide’ of another people.”

Other events at Vassar indicate the campus SJP chapter’s support of anti-Israel terrorism. In February 2016, Vassar SJP sold T-shirts picturing convicted terrorist Leila Khaled holding a gun with the words “Resistance is not Terrorism” written below the graphic. SJP Vassar also endorsed the T-shirt’s message by a post on social media: “Check out our friends at Existence is Resistance!!! They will be selling sweet fucking antiZionist gear at our events. 100% of profits goes towards organizing Palestinian resistance #ExistenceisResistance.”

In May of 2014, Vassar SJP managed to briefly shock even the radical campus administration by posting a “racist, anti-Semitic graphic” on its social media Tumbler page, depicting a 1940’s-era Nazi propaganda poster of a many-armed figure wearing a loincloth featuring the Star of David and holding a bag of money. The organization was briefly suspended, but was quickly reinstated.

Mostly silent during these outpourings of hatred, the reaction of Vassar administrators was quite different when the David Horowitz Freedom Center challenged the false and one sided campus narrative on Israel by hanging up posters critical of SJP and the BDS movement, and naming campus activists who supported these genocidal causes. Vassar Interim President Jon Chenette sent an email to the entire campus stating that the posters had been taken down and destroyed and that “Those in our community who were singled out in these postings deserve our unconditional support.”

Associate Dean of Campus Life and Diversity Ed Pittman went even further to heal the supposed wounds caused by the Freedom Center’s posters, organizing two separate sessions of an “all campus dialogue.” He stated: “Our best approach in these situations is to stand ready to support those who are impacted. It’s such a politically fueled issue that words and sometimes images are used to hurt, threaten and intimidate others because of their views.” Pittman concluded that the goal of Campus Life and Diversity was “to offer counter opportunities for discourse,” when he and Chenette had just done the very opposite.

For their immediate destruction of posters critical of SJP and coddling of students who may have been offended by them, while continuing to allow Hamas propaganda targeting Jewish students to appear on campus, Vassar administrators Jon Chenette and Ed Pittman make the case for Vassar’s inclusion on our list of administrations most friendly to terrorists and hostile to the First Amendment.


Thank You Ms Dogan and FPM.