We have been spilling digital ink about this for the last 6 years. Lo and behold there is an anti-Semitic group on the campus called the MSU! While the administration and the deans deny that there are any problems, it seems that in fact that is not the case.

Recently, the UCI student government passed a first reading of a resolution BACKING the MSU, and the anti-Semitic thugs trying again to shut up the Jews from speaking freely at UCI.

Mark LeVine, a professor of modern Middle Eastern history at UC Irvine said in 2007, about attempts to quell some initiatives taken by the MSU and other UCI organizations involved in anti-Israel activism:

“The only thing that would satisfy the critics now would be if they expelled every Muslim student and painted stars of David on all the buildings.”

So don’t be too surprised that he has written a lengthy article defending the 11 students, 8 from UCI and 3 from UC Riverside, who disrupted the Michael Oren talk at UCI a couple of weeks ago.

Before I proceed, however, I’d like to remind everybody of a couple of events led by students from the UCI MSU and other anti-Israel groups on that campus.

LeVine’s arguments on behalf of the disruptive students can be boiled down to:

1. Yes, the students intended to disrupt Oren’s speech but “not to…scuttle it.”

2. “UC Irvine’s policies on student conduct offer little guidance as to whether the protests against Oren’s speech crossed the line.” “Since Oren was not ultimately prevented from speaking, how the “Irvine 11″ actually interfered with the university’s obligation to protect the Israeli ambassador’s 1st Amendment rights is unclear.

3. “The utter disparity in power between the students and the views they represent, and Oren and the government he represents.” “Oren’s appearance was part of a sophisticated effort by the Israeli government and its supporters to present Israel in the most positive light possible.”

4. “In fact, hard-line advocates for Israel aren’t strangers to “uncivil” behavior against adversaries.” He brings up “the Jerusalem-based World Union of Jewish Students’ “Hasbara Handbook” and explains that it encourages Jewish students to use negative language when referring to anti-Israel organizations. He then adds, “Given this, calling for a pound of flesh from the Muslim students for their protest seems disingenuous to say the least.”

5. “The chilling effect on free speech and dissent the response to the student protests could have on UC Irvine” because UCI sent out an email following the Oren event stating, “if anyone ‘without authority of law, willfully disturbs or breaks up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character . . .’ [they] can be charged with a misdemeanor.”

5 Continued: LeVine adds, “Imagine how a 19-year-old student would react to being told that she could be arrested and face expulsion from the university for merely engaging in vigorous protest against a speaker who supports forced female genital mutilation or the execution of homosexuals — or, more to the point, a speaker who represents a government that engaged in these practices.”

6. He concludes: “Marginalized voices sometimes have little recourse except to push the boundaries of polite debate to get their messages heard…In this case, the “Irvine 11″ played into deeply ingrained stereotypes of irrational and unreasonably angry Muslim men. But should they be punished without clear standards in place and when similarly rowdy protests in the past led neither to arrests nor university discipline?

If I may, I’d like to respond to Professor LeVine, who actually claimed in 2007 that only Stars of David painted across UCI buildings would satisfy critics of anti-Israel advocates on campus and is now using the laden phrase “pound of flesh” to make his case (after the break).

1. LeVine has no idea whether the students intended to scuttle it or not. In fact, I would challenge that assertion. Since we’ve shown that at least 5 (and others claim all 8 ) of the students from UCI are MSU members, this letter to the editor of UC Irvine’s New University newspaper from the MSU indicates they believed Oren had no right of speech at all:

…We oppose Michael Oren’s invitation to our campus. Propagating murder is not a responsible expression of free speech. Oren and his partners should only be granted a speakers platform in the International Criminal Court and should not be honored on our campus.

2. Oren was prevented from speaking over and over again that night. There was no way to know whether there would be further disruptions since the students ignored the numerous pleas and warnings to stop. His right of speech was undeniably curtailed as a result.

More important, as to LeVine’s point that university guidelines about such disturbances aren’t clear, they were made clear during the interruptions to the speech. Both the hosting professor and the Chancellor warned the students to stop. Had they said nothing, LeVine might have an argument, but when warnings are expressed multiple times by officials of the university, the terms of the situation are clarified and publicized. The students were warned there would be academic and possibly police (criminal) sanctions if they continued with the disruptions. This became clear after the first disruption. They chose to proceed with disruptions anyway.

In addition, thanks to the Chemerinsky article, we now know that the UCI administration had gotten wind of the MSU plan and sent them an inquiry and warning about disrupting the event. The MSU denied, through its officials, that it intended any actions, but then the president and vice president of the MSU were among those who disrupted the talk. At the very least, even if one absurdly distances the MSU from the disruptions, the people involved knew the administration did not wish to have disturbances.

3. It doesn’t matter if Oren was the King of the World, the so-called disparity between the students and this individual has nothing to do with disrupting his right to speak or of his audience to hear him, in full, including a question and answer period. If he’s slated for 90 minutes, that’s what should be heard by all.

Second, to claim that these students are not part of a larger campaign is ridiculous. UCI is one of about 200 campuses that have some form of anti-Israel week and it is a well-orchestrated effort. This is not happening in a vacuum.

Third, the disrupting students were mostly from the MSU. While there is no direct information on their website or elsewhere linking them to the Muslim Student Association on other campuses, some sources indicate a connection. The MSA was founded as an outpost of the Muslim Brotherhood decades ago and has been funded with Saudi money in the past. Links and evidence can be found here. Connections to to the Muslim Brotherhood, including some mentioning the MSA at UCI are found in this paper by Steven Emerson’s Investigative Project. At the very least, one has to ask whether the UCI MSU is connected to these organizations (this article from 2008 claims they are under the MSA umbrella) or not before making pronouncements about disparity between the disruptive students and their victim. If they are connected to the MSA, that organization is huge, with hundreds of campuses under its umbrella. Some more information is available here.

4. The good old “Hasbara Handbook” trick. I wish I could find out whether and how that thing was distributed since I keep reading about it from anti-Israel advocates. In any case, whether or not that manual exists or was ever actually put to use by people who advocate for Israel (we need evidence, since all LeVine says is that such a handbook exists but then provides no examples of its use), that has nothing to do with the disruptions to Oren by people who have no connection to the Hasbara handbook, especially since they were made after warnings to the contrary. This was another nice dig at Israel and Jews for Professor LeVine, however.

5. The chilling effect on free speech will not exist at UCI if these students are punished. On the contrary, the university will feel free to bring in serious speakers like Mr. Oren without fear of embarrassment. Audiences will know they can come to UCI to hear serious speakers give lectures without being disturbed. If Prof. LeVine cares so much about chilling free speech at UCI, he might wish to take a look at the second video posted above where the pro-Palestinians on his campus decided to censor any recording of one of their guests, even as he was spewing what can only be described as anti-Semitic venom.

The students could have protested without disrupting Oren’s talk. They could have held signs up in the back of the room. They could have distributed leaflets. They could have chanted outside the auditorium. Etc. None of these would be covered by the UCI administration’s warnings. Dissent and free speech need not mean disruption and interference.

5. Continued: LeVine continues to weaken his argument and his gravity by comparing Israel and Michael Oren to countries that practice “forced female genital mutilation or the execution of homosexuals.” Interestingly, Israel does neither.

However, his point is not about mutilation or murder of homosexuals, that was just another dig at Israel, it is about the unfortunate 19 year old kid who will be afraid to speak his mind. LeVine’s concern is unfounded. That 19 year old kid, or 22 year old president of an on-campus organization, just needs to remember not to disrupt others’ rights to free expression or others’ right to hear speakers. Surely, Professor LeVine recognizes the possibility of dissenting without preventing the speech of others.

6. LeVine concludes by calling the protesting students “marginalized” and excusing their behavior as playing into stereotypes which might be falsely enhancing a desire to punish them. And then he states his belief that they should not be punished in any way since there was no clear university policy and other incidents in the past have not yielded punishments.

Well, of course, the last excuse is the weakest. The past does not indicate that things shouldn’t change, particularly when the behavior is so disturbing. Second, he should really stop using the “stereotypes” excuse since it has absolutely nothing to do with the UCI or UCR students. Nobody serious has said anything about this other than their apologists. Third, they are far from marginalized students. When I looked up their names, they appeared to all intents and purposes to be popular, active students who engaged other students at barbecues and sports teams. Finally, and the reason LeVine’s argument fails, is that these students were warned before the event and during the event. They are adults and they made adult decisions to ignore those warnings. They obviously planned the incident in detail and stuck to the plan even after being asked and warned to stop during the talk.

My prescription for a fair punishment can be found on this post at the end (hint: it does not include expulsion of the students or the painting of swastikas, stars of David or green crescents on UCI’s buildings).

I want to conclude by discussing Professor LeVine’s reprehensible comments regarding Jews. His comment about the Stars of David is nothing less than hateful sloganeering against Jews who had asked that UC Irvine create a less hostile atmosphere on campus during those weeks when the anti-Israel groups bring their hate-fest to campus. The comment about a pound of flesh is no less disgusting and was entirely unnecessary. Also unnecessary was the false comparison of Israel to countries that kill homosexuals or practice forced female mutilation. He should be very pleased that nobody is curtailing his right to free speech, even when it is hideous speech.

In the meantime, a new Facebook group and website called “We Won’t Be Silenced” is demanding that UCI and the UC system take active steps against these students.

We all know that UC Irvine has been a hotbed for intense anti-Israel activism, which sometimes has slipped into outright anti-Semitism. Even when it’s not anti-Semitic, UCI activities, often led by their Muslim Student Union or affiliated parties, have taken on-campus anti-Israel activism to another level. Fortunately, most of the time, these attacks reflect poorly on the activists, so that even though they succeed in getting their message publicized, reasonable people often conclude that the protesters are in the wrong.

Similar conclusions have been drawn by many regarding the disruptions of Michael Oren, a historian who is currently Israel’s ambassador to the US, a couple of weeks ago at the UCI campus. One by one, 11 students, 8 from UCI and 3 from UC Riverside, disrupted the talk so that the audience heard his speech in bits and pieces and never had a chance to ask him questions. The students were warned that they would be removed and there would be consequences, yet they persisted to disrupt the speech. Upon removal from the auditorium, they were arrested and their names were released. It turned out that the president and vice-president of UCI’s MSU were involved as were other members. Despite this, and the website posting against Oren’s appearance, the MSU has denied any connection to the disruptions.

Since then, the campus has entered into a debate about freedom of speech. The defenders of the disruptions claimed that the offenders were merely exercising their free speech rights and, in fact, by removing them from the hall and by arresting them, those rights have been being quashed. Those who oppose the disruptions make the claim that the First Amendment does not give carte blanche to disrupt the right of a speaker to express his views or to have his listeners be prevented from hearing those views.

Well, it turns out that UCI has a recently opened law school and it is headed by Erwin Chemerinsky, its founding dean. As a side note, it appears that his hiring involved unfavorable attention by some Repubicans. Chancellor Drake at first announced that Chemerinsky wouldn’t receive the job he was offered, and denied any outside interference. However, after it was shown that he had been contacted by interested parties, he traveled to meet with the professor, who had recently been called one of America’s top 20 legal thinkers by a prominent legal publication. It appears that Mr. Chemerinsky schooled Mr. Drake about academic freedom, because he got his offer and the job back again.

Needless to say, between allowing UC Irvine to become a punching bag for all sorts of interests, his weak condemnation of the MSU protesters at the Oren speech and the quick turnaround with Chemerinsky and his job prospects, one wonders whether another leader would serve this campus better than Drake.

Anyhoo, Chemerinsky is an expert in “constitutional law, federal practice, civil rights and civil liberties, and appellate litigation.” He’s also Jewish. And, he wrote an editorial in the LA Times about “UC Irvine’s free speech debate.” What does he think?

College campuses, especially at public universities, are places where all ideas should be expressed and debated. No speech ever should be stopped or punished because of the viewpoint expressed. Of course, there must be rules to regulate the time, place and manner of such expression to preserve order and even to make sure that speech can occur.

These general principles are unassailable, but their application to recent events at the University of California, Irvine, has attracted international attention. …

Eleven individuals were arrested, and those who are UCI students are facing disciplinary action. In the last week, I have been deluged with messages from those saying the disruptive students did nothing wrong and deserve no punishment, and also from those saying that the students should be expelled and that others in the audience who cheered them on should be disciplined.

Both of these views are wrong. As to the former, there are now posters around campus referring to the unjust treatment of the “Irvine 11″ and saying they were just engaging in speech themselves. However, freedom of speech never has been regarded as an absolute right to speak out at any time and in any manner. Long ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes explained that there was no right to falsely shout “fire” in a crowded theater.

The government, including public universities, always can impose time, place and manner restrictions on speech. A person who comes into my classroom and shouts so that I cannot teach surely can be punished without offending the 1st Amendment. Likewise, those who yelled to keep the ambassador from being heard were not engaged in constitutionally protected behavior.

Freedom of speech, on campuses and elsewhere, is rendered meaningless if speakers can be shouted down by those who disagree. The law is well established that the government can act to prevent a heckler’s veto — to prevent the reaction of the audience from silencing the speaker. There is simply no 1st Amendment right to go into an auditorium and prevent a speaker from being heard, no matter who the speaker is or how strongly one disagrees with his or her message.

…
At the same time, I also disagree with those who call for draconian sanctions against these students or of punishment for a larger group. Only the students who were actually disruptive should be punished. Whether there will be criminal prosecutions is up to the Orange County district attorney. Within the university, the punishment should be great enough to convey that the conduct was wrong and unacceptable, but it should not be so severe as to ruin these students’ educational careers.

I bow my head in humility to Mr. Chemerinsky’s deep knowledge of the law and accept his verdict that “There is simply no 1st Amendment right to go into an auditorium and prevent a speaker from being heard.” I thank him for teaching me about the “Heckler’s Veto.”

My problem with his conclusion, however, is that it only deals with this incident and treats it as an anomaly instead of part of a larger pattern, which is easily provable. By absolving the MSU from any involvement in this case, despite their online call against Oren’s speech and the involvement of key members of this group in the disruptions, Chemerinsky only encourages groups to foment disruptive behavior on campus and if there are consequences to their members, claim innocence or ignorance and let those individuals hang without support. Of course, this type of absolution will mean that any group can organize these sorts of protests without fear of consequences.

I can understand this in matters where there is a bigger question mark about the involvement of the group in question, but in this case, this disruption was part of a much broader pattern.

A meaningful punishment is required for another reason. Chemerinsky himself notes that “Prior to this event, campus officials heard rumors that some members of the Muslim Student Union planned to disrupt the ambassador’s speech…When asked, the officials of the Muslim Student Union denied any plans to do this.”

We don’t know who the MSU officials were, but we can assume that the president and vice-president of the group have to take responsibility for any actions taken by their officials when they are speaking on behalf of the group. Since those two individuals (the pres and VP) were directly involved in the disruptions at the Oren talk, their responsibility not only grows far beyond that of the average MSU student, but it directly implicates the MSU as an organization since they would have had prior knowledge that the university was concerned about such disruptions.

In other words, to allow the MSU to get away with officially denying involvement in the disruptive activities that the university sought to quell, even though its members, and particularly its leadership, were direct participants, is no different than an abuser punching somebody after being asked not to, and then denying that the punch came from the abuser because his right hand acted independently.

Along with punishing the MSU, Chemerinsky should reconsider his position about what makes for an appropriate punishment for these protesters. He doesn’t believe that they deserve the punishment “so severe as to ruin these students’ educational careers.”

In light of the fact that it is virtually impossible that MSU members who participated in the disruption did not know that the university had asked them not to cause disruptions, and in light of the fact that the individuals involved were senior enough to be leaders of this on-campus group and in light of the fact that they are adult students who were given the opportunity not to behave in a manner inimical to the request and best interests of the university, why should the university permit them to continue with their studies? They openly lied to the university.

They may be able to claim that the university was speaking to the MSU, not to its individual student members, but since those members comprise the MSU’s leadership, even as individual students with no MSU backing for their actions, they knowingly went against the university’s desire to avoid disruption.

It seems to me that a severe punishment is due. Should they be expelled? Maybe not. That would galvanize support around them. However, a break from studies to mull over their behavior and learn from it seems appropriate here, as would some permanent mark on their school transcripts explaining why there is a gap between semesters.

The issues here go beyond stealing the opportunity for students at the university to hear a speaker and learn from the exchange of ideas. They touch directly on the ideals of a university as a place where integrity is a must because a lack of integrity undermines properly imparting and receiving knowledge. This is why plagiarism is treated severely in the academic world. Lying to a university’s administration would seem to be on the same plane.

According to this Orange County Register website, 8 UC Irvine students and 3 UC Riverside students were cited for disrupting a public event because of their disruption of the Michael Oren talk at UC Irvine.

Police have identified the students as:

UC Irvine

Joseph Tamim Haider

Osama Ahmed Sabry Shabaik

Mohemed Mohy Eldeen Abdelgany

Ali Mohammad Sayeed

Asaad Traina

Mohammad Qureashi

Aslam Akhtar

Hakim Nasreddine Kebir

UC Riverside

Taher Herzallam

Shaheen Waleed Nassar

Khalid Bahgat Akari

Apparently, the UCI MSU has denied a connection between the disruptions of Oren, which were clearly well organized, and their organization. That may be true, but I thought I might check up on some of the arrested parties above.

Joseph Haider? In this article, he is promoting a UCI-MSU event.

Osama Shabaik (second name on the list)? Here he is interviewed and is described as a member of the UCI-MSU. On the UCI-MSU contacts page he is listed as their VICE PRESIDENT.

Mohemed Abdelgany? Why he’s right on the UCI-MSU website where he is listed as their PRESIDENT or “amir.”

Ali Sayeed? The link is no longer cached, but a Google search still shows that he was team manager for the MSU 1 flag football team at UCI.

Can’t find anything on Asaad Traina or Mohammad Qureashi but on a now-erased page on the MSU website, Aslam Akhtar writes:

“MSU (Muslim Student Union): The MSU has directed and channeled me into the person I am today. It has kept me motivated to pursue my goals, and at the same time has defined my goals into the personification in which they are in today.”

Indeed it has!

Hakim Kebir is an MSU host for a barbecue as listed on this cached Facebook page.

The UC Riverside students have less information online. Shaheen Nassar appears to have belonged to a Muslim Students Association in Pomona before coming to UC Riverside but there’s no information about Akari or Herzallam.

In short, a number of active MSU members, including the President and Vice President of the organization were involved in this orchestrated disruption of a speaker at the UC Irvine campus. Sure, maybe they were acting on their own, but since they happen to be running the organization, the only apt description for the MSU distancing itself from these activities is…HILARIOUS. Thanks for the laughs, guys.

Here is UCI Chancellor, Michael Drake, in a public statement after his poor performance during the talk and especially in the last few years where his campus has enabled anti-Israel and anti-Semitic activities to a degree seen on few campuses in North America.

Campus Disruption
Feb. 9, 2010
Dear Colleagues:

Last night, Michael Oren, Israeli ambassador to the U.S., shared his perspectives on American-Israeli relations in a free public lecture in the UC Irvine Student Center. During his talk, several members of the audience stood and shouted – one at a time, repeatedly – in an effort to disrupt his message.

This behavior is intolerable. Freedom of speech is among the most fundamental, and among the most cherished of the bedrock values our nation is built upon. A great university depends on the free exchange of ideas. This is non-negotiable. Those who attempt to suppress the rights of others violate core principles that are the foundation of any learning community. We cannot and do not allow such behavior.

Eleven individuals were arrested as a result of their actions last night and are being processed accordingly. Additionally, the Office of Student Conduct has initiated the Student Judiciary Review process to address issues under their jurisdiction.

I am very pleased that the ambassador stayed on and was able to complete his speech. This university is, and always will be, committed to the expression of all ideas and viewpoints.”

Chancellor Michael Drake

Here, Chancellor Drake, is what you have permitted to take place on your campus year after year:

Here is some straightforward anti-Semitism in this annual Israel hate-fest run, in part by the UCI MSU. You will notice the video is being shot by a student who is being forced to leave the room because he is videotaping:

Ambassador Oren heckled and disrupted by Hamas on Campus at UC Irvine. 12 arrested.

When will University President Michael Drake KICK THE MSU OFF CAMPUS? When will the University take responsibility for this?

We have heard Michael Drake for years DENY THAT THERE IS ANY SERIOUS PROBLEM. He said this publicly.

No problem, huh? The University has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on so-called bridge building which is for the most part totally ineffective. As long as the MSU is allowed on campus, as long as students are not held responsible for their actions, this kind of activity will continue.

Update: the police has released information about the protesters. It turns out that the president and vice president of the UCI MSU were among those who protested and were arrested.

Another video after the jump:

Dear California Secretary of Education Thomas,

The “UC Intifada” at UCI – is raging and Chancellor Drake and the University seem unable or unwilling to act in an effective way to protect the best interests of the student body, and keep intimidation, racism, and anti-Semitism off campus.

I have been the campus rabbi at UCI for almost 5 years, under the auspices of an independent Jewish campus ministry. I also serve as the only Rabbi of the UCI Interfaith Center. My concerns are based on long-term, grassroots involvement, which has brought me into contact with thousands of UCI students – Jewish and Gentile.

It is a well established, and sadly, an accepted part of student life at UCI, that Israel and Jews are being singled out, vilified, and targeted for intimidation. It is the same nightmare of previous year’s except much worse and much longer.

Check out a video circulated by the Muslim Student Union on YouTube, which promotes their upcoming “Israel: The Politics of Genocide” nearly-month long campaign.

While some have pointed to the Olive Tree Initiative as the solution, even according to the participants it is irrelevant. It will do little to change the institutionalized commitment for the destruction of Israel held by the hard-line mainstream Muslim group on the campus, and their support for radical anti-Western, racist, anti-Semitic speakers. The OTI is not capable of solving this entrenched problem now, or in the future, even though they have admirable goals and ambition. In addition, the OTI has excluded religious Jews because they hold their major programs on the Jewish Sabbath.

What started as a week of intimidation called Anti-Zionism week, now encompasses nearly the whole month of May and accuses Israel of Genocide. In recent year’s they called the program “Holocaust in the Holy Land”. These outright lies, seem to conflict with the same groups willingness to abide by campus policies.

In 2006, I coined that phrase UC Intifada to describe what I saw.

In 2007, the Muslim Students used that phrase on their t-shirts to describe what they were doing.

The spiritual leader of the UCI chapter of the MSU, Malik Ali, has declared a “Jihad of the Tongue” against Jews, Israel and the West to be waged from here. Malik Ali has spoken many times praising suicide bombers, Hamas and Hizbollah. He is a nationally known racist, inciting hatred against the Jews. Videos of his diatribes are all over YouTube, and many were shot at UCI.

Someone from the UC system needs to provide supervision and protection. The UC System needs to send a message loud and clear that it will not tolerate racist groups from using campus groups to pursue their larger racist, agendas. In addition, it is the students that suffer the most. Theses programs cause anxiety and fear. It disrupts class and homework schedules.

I tried to reach Chancellor Drake, but he is traveling. Funny, they said that last year when we tried to find him during Hate Week.

Please help the students, cancel the events this week, and kick the MSU off campus.

Rabbi Yonah Bookstein
UCI Interfaith Center Associate Rabbi