Several months ago, the Al-Talib Editorial Board condemned a statement released by the office of Chancellor Gene Block that took a biased stance against bigotry on UCLA’s campus in light of Israel’s violations of international law. The statement was nothing short of tone-deaf, hypocritical, and lacking critical nuance regarding the rise of anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian, and Islamophobic rhetoric.
As tensions flare once again regarding SJP’s encampment by Royce Hall, UCLA administrators have yet again put their biases on clear display and made it abundantly clear how they perceive pro-Palestinian voices on-campus.
On April 30th, Chancellor Block issued “Affirming Our Values in a Challenging Time,” a statement intended to be a neutral call for peaceful demonstration and for enhanced safety measures on-campus.
But what was intended to be a unifying press release falls way short because it exposes the university’s crippling inability to genuinely criticize Zionists that entered campus determined to instigate conflict and threaten protestors. And what’s more, the administrators have shown a clear neglect for the safety of Palestinians and their allies.
To begin, Block notes that both sides, while mostly peaceful, have engaged in violent activity last weekend:
“But the tactics of others have frankly been shocking and shameful. We have seen instances of violence completely at odds with our values as an institution dedicated to respect and mutual understanding.”
“UCLA supports peaceful protest, but not activism that harms our ability to carry out our academic mission and makes people in our community feel bullied, threatened and afraid. These incidents have put many on our campus, especially our Jewish students, in a state of anxiety and fear.”
To be clear, Chancellor Block is not entirely unjustified in making these statements. Amidst the protests, there have been instances of vandalism and excess violence that only undermine the efficacy of the pro-Palestinian platform.
Critically, however, Chancellor Block does not make clear whether these actions were the result of UCLA non-affiliates — people who in no shape reflect the peaceful intentions of SJP in creating the Solidarity Encampment. The statement even mentions that UCLA is “engaged with law enforcement” to investigate these recent acts.
In other words, Block is condemning what cannot yet be reasonably attributed to the encampment movement on campus. Well, that’s convenient.
Even more alarming, by using vague platitudes to describe the violent activities on-campus last weekend, Chancellor Block draws a blatant false equivalence between the pro-Palestinian and Zionist protestors.
Over the weekend, students have reported instances of hate crimes or acts of intimidation from Zionist protestors, including but certainly not limited to:
- releasing a backpack full of mice on the encampment grounds
- assaulting students with lethal food allergies (including bananas)
- using racially derogatory slurs, spitting on pro-Palestinian protestors, making threats of imminent violence, and starting physical altercations unprovoked
- wishing pro-Palestinian protestors to get raped and intimidating hijabi students
- hosting a concert featuring an Islamophobic performer
The fact that Chancellor Block makes no explicit mention of these details is so telling. In that same statement, Block feels the need to mention that students have been blocked from parts of campus due to the encampment — which by its very nature is the point of a protest to begin with.
Don’t you get it? People are dying, Gene. Children. Over 15,000 of them. Business cannot go on as usual.
And in spite of all that, Chancellor Block cannot bring himself to make genuinely substantive criticisms of the Zionist counter protestors. It illustrates how entangled the UC is with business interests in Israel. Failing to show the extent of Zionist violence only makes the UC Regents’ recent rejection of Israel-related divestment that much more palatable in the public eye. By omitting these details, UCLA administrators absolve themselves of the burden of explaining why they are complicit in funding companies that support acts of genocide.
And at its core, the statement illustrates that UCLA administrators do not value the safety of Palestinians. This is made especially clear when Chancellor emphasizes the importance of protecting Jewish students without any mention of Palestinians.
And to be clear, every student is entitled to a safe learning environment. Every single one. But Block’s call for safety is written such that it portrays the encampment as a clear and present danger to Jewish students.
But the statement ignores the fact that Jewish Voices for Peace hosted a Passover Seder on the encampment grounds in solidarity with the movement. The chapter’s continual support of the encampment lends further credence to the peaceful nature of the student-led protest regarding Jewish students, and that any demonstrable acts of violence done against Jewish students were the result of non-UCLA affiliated individuals who do not represent the movement and its goals.
And just as critically, what about Palestinians?
How can Palestinians ever feel safe on a campus that invalidates their plea to end the ceaseless violence that has killed friends and family in the Gaza Strip? How can they feel safe when the UC rejects any plea to divest from the businesses that enable Israel to carry out its acts of genocide? Ultimately, such blatant neglect speaks to how valued Palestinian voices are to UCLA administrators (spoiler: they’re not).
So once again, we are left wondering: what values are we “affirming,” Gene? The right to safety, or the right to feel comfortable in your own complicity?