My Letter to Erwin Chemerinsky: His Response

On September 16, I sent an open letter to UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky regarding a controversy in which certain organized student groups within his school had expressed their opposition to having pro-Israel speakers on campus. The letter was also posted here on this site.

In fairness, I feel I should post Chemerinsky's response, which came the same day. I am also posting my own reply. At this point, I do not anticipate any further exchanges, and I am grateful that we could have a civilized exchange to express our differences. Both of the below responses are dated September 16.

"Dear Mr. Fouse,

 

Thanks for writing.  The Law School cannot constitutionally ban a student group because of its views.  The Law School cannot exclude the National Lawyers Guild student group or the Students for Justice in Palestine or any other group because of their views.  That would unquestionably violate the First Amendment. 

 

I also disagree with your assumption that liberals are pro-Palestinian and against Israel.  I think it is far more complicated than that.

 

As for counter speech, Berkeley Law has the Helen Diller Institute on Israel and Jewish Studies.  You might take a look at its programs to get a sense of the many things that occur at Berkeley Law from a different perspective.

 

Ultimately, a campus must be a place where all ideas can be expressed, those that you or I like, and those that we loathe."

Erwin

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Dean Chemerinsky,,

Thank you for your reply. I don't wish to take up any more of your time, but I would just briefly like to respond to your points.

1 I was not saying that you should ban any student groups within your law school. (Hopefully, you will not have to deal with a neo-Nazi or KKK student group insisting on acceptance in the future.) As a retired law enforcement officer, I fully appreciate the First Amendment.  I have always respected that right when attending MSU/SJP events at UCI, and I only wish they would respect the free speech rights of pro-Israel students and their events. You inform me that the NLG cannot be excluded from establishing a chapter within your law school. Fine. I do note, however, that the Career Development Office of the law school includes the San Francisco chapter of the NLG on its list of recommended legal associations. Again, that is your right. I only mention it for what it is worth.

2  As for the question of whether liberals are pro-Palestinian and against Israel, perhaps, I did not make myself clear. I did not mean to imply that all people on the left were pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. As you say, it is more complicated than that, and I agree. However, my point is that there is definitely an alliance between the pro-Palestinian cause and many leftist groups and individuals, both on and off campus. 

3  As for the Helen Diller Institute, I was unaware of that. I have been searching their websites, and thus far, I don't see anything that indicates any agendas one way or the other when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I will continue to research them

4 I agree with your view that a campus must be a place where all ideas can be expressed, both those we agree with and disagree with. Unfortunately, that is hardly the case in academia today. 

Again, I thank you for your time.

Respectfully, 

Gary Fouse