Jewish students, faculty urge UC regents to act on antisemitism, discipline and speech disputes

March 20 — Dozens of students, faculty members and staff used the University of California Board of Regents’ public-comment period to press the system to take clearer action on reported antisemitism, to adopt a standard definition of antisemitism and to disclose whether campus disciplinary measures followed last year’s encampments.

The comments came during the regents’ March 20 public comment period. “Chancellor Julio Frenk’s decisive action suspending SJP and launching an initiative to combat antisemitism sets a standard for the entire UC system,” said Chloe Levian, a 2022 UCLA alum and senior Southwest campus regional manager at Stand With Us.

Why it matters: Speakers said the campus climate affects students’ safety and access to education, and several asked the regents to use systemwide policy tools — including a recognized definition of antisemitism — to distinguish protected criticism of Israel from harassment or intimidation that targets Jewish students.

Several speakers praised UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk’s response to last spring’s encampments and called for a consistent systemwide approach. “We are equally committed to a university where people are able to speak freely and live their identities openly without being threatened, harassed, or shouted down,” said David Nimmer, who teaches First Amendment law at UCLA Law School and spoke on behalf of the Jewish Faculty Resilience Group (JFrog).

Kira Stein, assistant clinical professor at UCLA and founder of JFrog, urged the regents to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism to help campus administrators distinguish protected criticism of Israel from speech that demonizes or delegitimizes Jewish people or the Jewish state. “Adopting the IHRA definition is an essential step,” Stein said.

Multiple speakers asked the regents for transparency about disciplinary actions tied to last spring’s encampments. Lillian Gelberg, a professor and physician at UCLA representing JFrog, said interim campus leadership previously acknowledged hundreds of complaints but that she had been told no members of the campus community had been disciplined; she asked the regents to disclose whether any disciplinary steps were taken since November.

Several speakers also referenced litigation tied to campus encampments. Amanda Kozak, an associate clinical professor and pediatric hospitalist at UCLA, said UCLA accepted the terms of a temporary injunction in a case she described as the Frankel matter but continued to appeal the underlying case; she urged the university to pursue a settlement that would prevent similar encampments in the future.

Not all public comments focused on antisemitism alone. Some speakers described experiences of being targeted for pro-Palestinian viewpoints and said campus policing and discipline had been used to suppress dissent. Sarah Boyle, a third-year law student, said she and others had filed a lawsuit alleging UCLA intimidated protesters and asked the regents to read the complaint. Kat Washington, a third-year law student who said she was arrested during the UCLA Palestine solidarity encampment, accused campus police of failing to protect protesters from violent attacks and urged public disclosure and divestment from companies she described as profiting from the conflict.

Other speakers urged an independent review of campus programming. Rebecca Metzger, a librarian at UCSB, called for an independent review of a UCSB workshop she said portrayed Zionism as separate from Jewish identity and urged the regents to reaffirm protections under federal civil-rights law, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

Several faculty members and staff representing JFrog commended UCLA leadership for new initiatives to address antisemitism and urged that any policy be enforced, including disciplinary procedures and restrictions on disruptive encampments. Terry Wahlberg, clinical faculty at UCLA’s School of Medicine, said enforcement of existing rules would be critical to restoring a welcoming campus climate.

Regent and public responses: The regents did not take immediate action at the meeting; the chair said public comments would be taken into consideration. No formal votes or directives were announced during the public-comment period.

What regents heard — recurring requests and specifics: speakers asked for (1) adoption of a clear, systemwide definition of antisemitism (IHRA); (2) disclosure of any disciplinary actions taken after the encampments; (3) consideration of settlement rather than prolonged appeals in the temporary-injunction litigation; and (4) independent reviews where speakers alleged programming or workshops promoted bias.

The regents’ staff noted the public-comment period was limited and that the board typically does not respond during the session; the board’s statement closed the period by thanking speakers and saying their remarks would inform deliberations.