CAIR Requests UC-Irvine to Drop Charges

Below is a letter (from the CAIR website)sent to UC-Irvine Chancellor Michael Drake asking that all charges and disciplinary proceedings be dropped against the eleven students who disrupted Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren's speech Monday night.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


CAIR-LA and National Lawyers Guild-Los Angeles Send Letter to UCI Chancellor about ‘Irvine 11’Groups Ask Chancellor to Drop Charges that Selectively & Disproportionately Penalize Students and Harm Free Speech
(Feb 13, 2010 - ANAHEIM, CA)
February 12, 2010
Chancellor Michael Drake
University of California, Irvine
Irvine, CA 92697

"Dear Chancellor Drake:


We are writing to you regarding the detention, citation, and pursuance of disciplinary action against several UCI students who vocally protested the speech of Israel Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren on February 8, 2010 at a UCI-sponsored on-campus event. Of particular concern to us are statements by UCI officials that the students will likely face disciplinary hearings resulting in suspension or dismissal for their constitutionally-protected protest activities. 1
On the evening of February 8, 2010, several students from UC campuses individually stood up at different intervals during Mr. Oren’s speech and vocalized their dissent with Israeli policy and his representation of the Israeli government. Student statements included “propagating murder is not free speech.” Their statements were met with both applause and opprobrium. Likewise, audience members who supported the speaker’s point-of-view shouted out words of support, occasionally resorting to profane, racist, and threatening remarks to those students protesting the speaker. Mr. Oren left the stage for some minutes and then returned to the stage where, despite shout-outs from both supporters and opponents, was able to continue with and conclude his speech. Eleven students were arrested and could face misdemeanor charges, while the eight UCI student protestors face disciplinary action by UCI.
As you are no doubt aware, the right to freely express one’s opinions is a most sacred freedom protected by our Constitution, college campuses being an essential forum for this expression. Civil protest against government abuses is a time-honored tradition that has led to the end of apartheid and the birth of civil rights.
Only in very narrow circumstances may this freedom be subdued by state activity, as in the “heckler’s veto” scenario, in which a state actor may suspend speech when a reacting party is likely to be incited to violence,2 or the disruption “substantially impairs the effective conduct of a meeting.”3 In all other circumstances the Supreme Court has recognized that “a State may not unduly suppress free communication of views, religious or other, under the guise of conserving desirable conditions.”4
In the case at hand, while Mr. Oren no doubt disapproved of the remarks coming from his opponents, we do not believe that the students’ behavior amounted to an undue interference with the public forum, nor was it so inciting as to not be afforded First Amendment protections. Indeed, while often impolite or argumentative, we do not feel that the remarks made by those on either side of the issue (save for the racist and threatening remarks of Mr. Oren’s supporters) were inappropriate for a public forum on a college campus. Nor were they inconsistent with the spirit of often heated exchanges that are at the heart of academic freedom and debate. The students voiced political views to shame the representative of a foreign government embroiled in controversy for its violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.5 Delivering this message in a loud and shocking manner expressed the gravity of the charges leveled against Israeli policies and falls within the purview of protected speech.
After making their brief statements, the students left in a voluntary and peaceful manner, and Mr. Oren was able to finish his speech. Any public speaker, particularly government representatives, understands that the nature of public speaking on controversial issues bears the risk of public censure. But it is a risk worth taking, and one we signatories often take, since the protection of the free exchange of ideas, regardless of the method of delivery, is of paramount interest to the university setting and broader society.
It is this primary duty of the University, to preserve the expressive freedoms of its students without heed to the political unpopularity of that speech, which we fear may not be afforded its due consideration by UCI. We are concerned that the construal of University policies to discipline these eight students is selective and excessive.
As stated, there have been countless instances of protest activities during campus speeches, including at UCI and even involving speeches by the signers of this letter, in which the protesting students were apparently not subjected to University disciplinary action. For example, in 2005 a UCI event with speaker John Yoo was disrupted by reacting protesters,6 and anti-Israel protesters disrupted a speaker from the Israeli foreign ministry at UCLA on Monday night.7 As mentioned above, even at the event in question counter-protesters made profane, racist, and threatening remarks to the protesting students.8 To our knowledge none of these events resulted in disciplinary action, nor are they facing disciplinary action by UCI, as are the students who vocally (but without profanity, threats, etc.) took issue with the speakers remarks. We are at a loss to explain this obviously disparate treatment. Such selective application of university policies to Muslim students engaged in constitutionally-protected political speech will be viewed by the American Muslim community and those who value free speech as an attempt to repress legitimate student protest.
While we understand your desire to offer public forums that proceed in an orderly fashion, we maintain that students have the right to voice their political views in a manner protected by the First Amendment. Free speech is a two way street; and we cannot perceive how any legitimate public interest would be furthered by condemning these students for partaking in a democratic freedom we all enjoy.
In light of the preceding, and the many accomplishments and contributions of these students at UCI, we therefore ask that charges and disciplinary actions against the students involved be dropped. In order to preserve UCI’s image as a campus welcoming free speech and vibrant political debate, we are fully confident that under your leadership UCI will address these concerns and remedy the situation as soon as is practicable.
We look forward to your response."
Sincerely,
Hussam Ayloush
Executive Director
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Greater Los Angeles Area Chapter

James Lafferty
Executive Director
National Lawyers Guild
Los Angeles Chapter
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since I was at the event, I would like to comment on some of the statements in the letter. First of all, the National Lawyers Guild is an organization founded in the 1930s as a legal arm of the Communist Party USA. (Just thought I'd throw that out there for what it's worth.) Mr Lafferty has spoken at least twice at UCI on behalf of the MSU during their hate-Israel festivals.

I also wonder what events, the writers are referring to when protesters disrupted MSU events. Surely, they are not referring to those events when Anteaters for Israel walked around with posters about "Hate Speech"? There was no disruption. I have seen Lafferty speak twice at UCI without disruption. In fact, what MSU event has been disrupted as was Mr Oren's speech?

As for allegations of "racist and threatening" statements allegedly made by the ambassador's supporters, the videotape clearly shows that there was a strong reaction from the audience, the overwhelming majority of whom wanted to hear the ambassador's speech. While it is possible that someone may have said something inappropriate to the protesters, to me, it would have been lost in the din. I myself heard nothing of a racist or threatening nature. (During a review of a videotape, I did see one man threatening students with "failing their mid-terms" or something like that, something I would not agree with.) My own remarks were limited to when either Dr Petracca or Dr Drake was at the microphone. For example, at one point, Dr Petracca stated, "The university is not anarchy." I said in response, "Oh yes, it is". (I will stand by that comment.)

The audience was not only angry at the protesters, they were angry at the university as well and let Dr Drake know it in no uncertain terms.

As to the legal issues and charges involved in the arrests, I will leave it to the courts and university to sort that all out. It is obvious at this point that CAIR, the NLG and other groups are sending a not so subtle message to Dr Drake that if criminal charges and disciplinary measures are not dropped, the university can expect a lawsuit. That's their M.O.