The months long investigation found that the GSA President violated UC Policy when attempting to bar funding to student groups engaged in pro-divestment speech. SJP has posted the redacted report online.

In a letter dated June 29, 2016, the UCLA Discrimination Prevention Office issued the findings from its investigation into potentially discriminatory acts by the 2015-2016 GSA President. At question was whether the GSA President had issued a restriction on access to student government funding that discriminated against pro-Palestinian viewpoints, and by extension the students who hold those views. The DPO’s investigation included 17 interviews as well as reviews of emails, meeting minutes, and other documents relevant to the issue. Among other things, the DPO found that:

1. Despite the GSA President’s later efforts to portray the stipulation as a poorly worded blanket ban on funding any speech in favor of or against divestment, an objective reader would view the funding stipulation as based on viewpoint.
2. The stipulation was never subject to the proper approval process of the GSA. As such, although it was represented to students as official GSA policy, this was not true.
3. Despite the GSA President’s claims, there is no evidence that the stipulation was asked for by other GSA Cabinet members or that the GSA’s advisors approved of the stipulation.
4. The viewpoint based nature of the stipulation meant that it violated several sections of University of California Policies Applying to Campus Activities, Organizations and Students (PACAOS). These policies show that the student government should provide for the discussion of a wide range of ideas, that student fees should be used to stimulate a discussion of such a wide range of ideas, and that funding to student groups must be allocated in a viewpoint neutral manner in order to further those objectives.
5. The stipulation negatively affected Campus Climate by chilling the speech of students, including students in pro-divestment organizations and organizations that wished to engage with pro-divestment organizations, and students who were made to believe that the restriction was official policy.

It should be noted that the DPO’s findings support the claims SJP made from beginning to end of this affair.

We believe that this case is an important issue for the UCLA public to understand, so as to ensure that future student governments do not repeat the mistakes of the 2015-16 GSA President. This case furthermore serves as a lesson about free speech, the role of student government on campus, and the consequences that follow when individuals in positions of power attempt to engage in censorship of a particular group’s viewpoint.

Now that this case is fully behind us, having been resolved by the GSA Forum’s resolution revoking the policy and apologizing to students, its letter of censure to the GSA President, and now these findings by the DPO, SJP at UCLA looks forward to continuing our work to educate and organize the campus in support of Palestinian freedom, equality, and justice. We will continue to make our argument that the UC system must cease investing in or supporting corporations that facilitate the violation of Palestinian human rights, and we look forward to doing so at both the undergraduate and graduate student level.

As a final point, we recognize that this attempt at censorship did not occur in a vacuum. For years now, pro-Israel groups have attempted to censor our side of the debate on the question of Palestine, presumably because they have no legitimate means of countering our arguments. Campus activism moves forward despite these attempts at censorship, but they cost time and energy to resist. The GSA President’s attempt to silence SJP’s point of view is of a piece with this longer trend of repression, but also serves as a case study and preview of the effects of legislation proposed in the California State Legislature. Attempts to use government power to single out individual viewpoints and penalize them are antithetical to free speech, corrosive to democracy, and a sign that today’s politicians have failed to learn the lessons of recent American history. If the effect of the GSA President’s censorious acts on UCLA’s campus climate are any indication, similar actions taken by the California government will also violate the law, intimidate citizens, and chill free speech. This is why the LA Times wrote in a recent editorial, that “Politicians are free to denounce BDS if they choose. But they must do so without infringing on the rights of their constituents.” A failure to understand this principle is the central mistake that the GSA President made, and it is the mistake that the California Legislature must now be persuaded not to repeat.

Via the Daily Bruin

Whoever asked the American Center for Law and Justice to weigh in on the Graduate Student Association funding scandal should have told them the whole story.

Last week, the ACLJ, a staunchly anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender and anti-women’s rights legal advocacy group founded by televangelist Pat Robertson, issued a letter to the university claiming that the GSA’s denial of student funds to groups that endorsed or were “connected to” pro-divestment positions in any way might actually have been legal. While there is ample evidence that their argument is legally wrong, it is just as important for the public to realize that the main condition underlying the ACLJ’s argument also turns out to be completely hypothetical. Here’s what happened:

The ACLJ’s argument rests on the premise that the GSA had passed a resolution adopting a position of neutrality on the issue of Israel-Palestine. In fact, as the GSA Cabinet wrote in its Nov. 24 statement of clarification, “GSA does not have any policy or resolution regarding inclusion or exclusion of any political, ideological or religious viewpoints in its event funding. Such a policy or resolution could only be passed by the GSA Forum, and no resolution to that effect has been considered or voted on by GSA Forum.” The Cabinet continued, stating that it had considered a “conceptual resolution” of neutrality, but that “in order to go into effect as a guideline for GSA, it would be required to be noticed and voted on by the GSA Forum, which has not occurred.”

So there you have it: The GSA itself says there’s no resolution of neutrality. In fact, statements made by multiple members of the GSA go even further, proving that the neutrality position was hastily contrived only after the funding restrictions were put in place – clearly an attempt to cover up or retroactively justify the restrictions.

So what does this mean? First, it means that the ACLJ is in the position of having written a set of legal arguments that have absolutely no foundation. Its legal letter is a castle made of sand. Second, and much more importantly, it means
that the GSA Cabinet never had the authority to issue funding restrictions to any group.

It is, however, worth considering what would be different if the GSA had indeed passed a neutrality resolution. Such a resolution would still not allow the GSA to make funding determinations based on the political views of its recipients. It is still illegal to say to students that in order to receive student funding, they had to have “zero connection” to other students who take a particular political position.

Let’s consider for a moment what behavior the ACLJ is defending. The emails sent on behalf of the GSA to a funding recipient said, “if we are aware that (you are) engaging with (Divest from Israel) – directly or indirectly – in the organization of this event – we’ll have to withdraw or recoup our allocation.” How can this be enforced except through Orwellian monitoring of graduate students’ speech and activity? Are we ready to turn the GSA Cabinet into the speech police for all the student groups that receive its funding, to make sure they don’t “endorse” or “connect” with anyone, “directly or indirectly,” whose speech is forbidden? Will the GSA be empowered to determine what speech crosses their lines and what doesn’t?

Ultimately, that type of speech policing is what the ACLJ is defending – a level of intrusion into individuals’ lives that fits quite well with its other legal work, like fighting what it calls the “radical homosexual agenda” and working to deny women the right to an abortion.

So what is the solution to this mess? First, while the administration shouldn’t be involved in day-to-day graduate governance, it can provide advice and training that would educate student leaders about the law and reduce the chances they might break it. Second, the GSA needs more transparency and internal oversight so that one arm can’t simply make up rules that the other arm never signed off on. And third, the GSA should adopt clear guidelines that prevent this from happening again. Right now, this last reform is the most realistic. Last week’s GSA Forum meeting resulted in the addition of such an amendment to the agenda for the next meeting in winter quarter. Anyone who is concerned about free speech should hope that it passes unanimously.