Loubna Qutami Speaks at UC Irvine: To Tape or Not to Tape

Last night concluded the Muslim Student Union's week of anti-Israel events at UC Irvine. The featured speaker was Ms. Loubna Qutami of the Palestinian Policy Network. The audience was almost all MSU members with a few non-Muslim students. Prior to the talk, a film was shown called Duna (Dolls). I was told last night that the film was shot in the West Bank-in Nazareth, but the above link makes reference to Palestinans living in Tel Aviv. The topic was sexual violence against Palestinian women within their own society. (I highly recommend viewing this film. It is is Arabic with English sub-titles. More on this later.)

Before the event started, there was the usual issue of videotaping. (This event was in a classroom.) Aside from myself, another individual, a journalist, was also present. He had set up a video camera on a small tripod. I was also nearby and was prepared to videotape with my own hand-held recorder. An MSU student came up and said that videotaping would not be allowed. At that point, I gave my now-standard response that it was a public event at a public university, that the issue had been decided in past events, and that people had the right to videotape. I added that if a campus police officer or university official instructed me to stop, I would comply.  A few minutes later, I walked outside and continued the discussion with the young man. He requested that I not videotape the film because of copyright laws. I agreed not to do that and added that I also would not videotape students as is my policy. A few minutes later, one of the female MSU members came to where the other cameraman and I were sitting and repeated the request not to videotape. I repeated my contention that we had a right to do so, but that I myself would not tape the film or videotape students. She then asked what if the speaker asked that we not videotape her talk, would I comply with that, and I answered "no", only if a campus police officer or university official directed me not to tape.  I also voiced the opinion to her that they might be inviting legal problems if they prevented people from videotaping. I repeated my promise that I would not tape the film or the students.

The event began and the movie started. A few minutes later, three campus police officers entered the room and asked to speak to both of us outside. It was their position that if the event organizers did not want any videotaping, we should comply with that wish. I repeated my contention that we had the right to do so at a public event at a public university. I also told them that the previous year, the MSU had tried to prevent me from taping (which were at indoor events) and that the campus police and the dean of students had backed me up and informed the MSU of that fact. One of the officers told me that was erroneous information. He also asked who the officer was that told me and I described the officer. (I didn't know his name, but I think he is a senior officer in the UCIPD.) It was clear from the outset that the officers were going to support the MSU's position, so I told them that I was going to follow their (officers' ) directions. The other cameraman  stated his case, but we both agreed to abide by the campus police directives. One of the officers added that it would be ok to videotape in an open outdoor venue but not in an enclosed room if that were the wish of the sponsoring organization. The two aforementioned MSU members, who were both present, agreed that there was no problem with us returning to the room as long as we didn't videotape. I should underline that the officers were all courteous and professional, and the discussion was civil at all times. I mentioned to the officers that on both sides we should research the legal question in order to avoid future problems. We then returned to the room.

The film

As stated, this film is highly recommended. ( I missed about ten minutes of it due to the above discussion with the campus police.) It is about one hour long and contains interviews with Palestinian women (their last names and faces not revealed) who had been the victims of rape and or violence at the hands of Palestinian men. Statements made by the women included references to women being blamed for the rape if they complained, being shamed, or even killed. It showed the funeral of a female, but we missed the part of how she died. There was a filmed and tape-recorded call made by a victim to her attacker years later, which was poignant. There was also a conversation between a victim, who had been raped by someone else's uncle, and a sympathetic female official of some type with whom she was going to lodge a complaint. At one point in the conversation, the female told her that, "This is a problem we have in Arab society." I did not see any reference to Israel in the film though, as stated, I missed about ten minutes due to the discussion with the campus police.

The speech

Then came Ms Qutami, who opened by repeating a request that she not be videotaped. Though she was not connected to the making of the film, she followed up by focusing her talk on gender violence within the Palestinian society.

I am paraphrasing her statements (unless quotation marks are used) since I was unable to videotape.

Make no mistake, Qutami, who comes from Palestinian parents, is an ideologue. While acknowledging the problem of gender violence, as she termed it, she laid the blame on guess who-the Israelis. You see, according to Qutami, gender violence arises as a consequence of the Israeli settler colonialism or the settler colonial project, as she termed it. She then went on to talk about the cycle of violence that occurs within indigenous populations by the colonizers or oppressors. She then talked about the Western mentality toward Eastern peoples as being uncivilized vis-a-vis the civilized West, using such terms as "colonial feminism". She
said that the West looks at Arab women as ones who need to be protected against this type of gender violence. She also said that they (Palestinians) could not talk about issues like gender violence because it reinforces Western stereotypes of Arabs. At one point, she referred to Edward Said's book, "Orientalism".

Going back to Israel, she said that Palestinian violence is embedded in the Zionist settler colonialism. "Occupation is violence". This has, according to Qutami, created a society of violence and intimidation. She stated that "violence is a tool of genocide" and made reference to the feminization of Palestinian men. She added that people of color don't talk about these things because it buys into the racist stereotypes of the West.

Qutami then launched into talk of Palestinian survival being the biggest threat to Israel and the worry that Palestinian women are giving birth. She then went back to 1948 and referred to threats of rape by Israel soldiers if Palestinians did not leave the territory during the fighting. She referred to a Palestinian woman who wrote of those days and was imprisoned by the Israelis for (terrorist acts) and later immigrated to the US where she is now under deportation proceedings by DHS. That led Qutami into references to the "US security structures".

Qutami then went into the usual horror stories of Israeli torture and the tactic of fear toward Palestinian women. referring to checkpoints, roadblocks, threats of rape, demolition of homes, and the apartheid wall. As her talk droned on (too long), her delivery suffered as she began quoting from books and reading her speech. She was losing her audience, and at 8 pm, the males left to pray. She was starting to lose her audience, literally and figuratively. What started out as impressive became boring.

Finally came the Q and A. As usual, I was the first to raise my hand. Due to what had happened earlier, I wanted to keep it civil yet make a point even if indirectly. After asking where the film was made (I was told Nazareth), I complimented the film as being important and courageous. I then asked Qutami if there were similar problems of gender violence within other Arab societies in the region, such as Egypt, Sudan, Iraq etc and also within the Arab diaspora in the West.

Qutami answered in the affirmative. Beginning with the US, she said that Arab women are being violated. Within the community, there is resistance in acknowledging the problem because too many want to maintain that the problem "doesn't exist within our community". She also said that Arab immigrant women have problems accessing the US court system. As an example, she said that sometimes, court translators come from the actual family involved. She also complained about the DOJ Office of Violence Against Women with a vague reference that resources are not available for Arab women because they are considered white. She also complained about the involvement of the FBI as investigators (presumably since the FBI is involved in investigating domestic terrorism).

As for the Arab world itself, Qutami mentioned Egypt as an example where gender violence is not criminalized and offers no support to women victims, so violence against women continues. However, she called Egypt an example of a "neo-colonialist regime". She added that the Arab world has never gotten out of the "neo-colonialist structure". It is the root of violence against women, she added.

In answering other questions, Qutami predictably brought in the litany of other complaints, such as illegal immigration, the "war on the poor" in the US, and US prisons. "Palestinians cannot be free as long as these conditions (in the US) continue".


At one point, she made a reference to the Judeo-Christian culture in connection with an attitude of conquest of indigenous peoples of other lands. There was no mention of any Islamic conquest. Again, I am paraphrasing.



To summarize, Qutami blames the problem of Palestinian gender violence on the "Israeli settler colonialism". She also blames the problem within the Arab world on "Neo-Colonialism". In the US diaspora, she lays at least partial blame on the US justice system for not providing sufficient access to abused women.

In other words, it's someone else's fault that the problem of gender violence against women exists in Arab society. The point I wanted to make with my question was that these problems do exist in other Arab societies, where one can hardly blame Israel. I think the point was made.

As to the video issue, I do intend to follow up with UCI and outside legal sources on this issue of videotaping. It has to be resolved from a legal point of view.

Meeting With UC Irvine Campus PD: Videotaping is Allowed

On May 8, 2014, I sent a letter to UC Irvine Dean of Students Rameen Talesh complaining about my not being allowed to videotape an event at UCI on May 1. Here are the contents of that letter:

Rameen Talesh, Ed.D. 
Dean of Students and Assistant Vice Chancellor, Student Life & Leadership 
University of California, Irvine 
Irvine, CA 92697-5125 
 
RE:   Incident on May 1, 2014 at UCI Social Sciences Lab Building Room 270 
 
Dear Dean Talesh: 
 
On the evening of May 1, 2014, I attended an event at the above location, which 
featured speaker Loubna Qutami. The event, which involved political speech of 
wide public interest, was sponsored by the UCI Muslim Student Union (MSU) as 
part of their “Anti-Zionism Week”. While I am an adjunct teacher at UCI 
Extension, I did not attend in that capacity, but rather in my role as a 
blogger. [In addition, you might find it helpful to know that I served three 
years in the US Army Military Police in Germany, was a Criminal Investigator 
with US Customs, and retired after serving as a Criminal Investigator with the 
US  Drug Enforcement Administration.]   My intention was to listen to the 
presentation, videotape it, and post it on my blog with commentary,  for 
purposes of informing the wider public and engaging in discussion of an issue of 
public interest.  Unfortunately, the UCI Campus Police prevented both me and a 
second videographer (who was there on assignment for an international 
organization,  independent of myself)  from filming, upon the direct request of 
the MSU.  I am concerned that these actions by the Campus Police may have 
infringed my Constitutional rights to free expression.  Moreover, I believe that 
these actions demonstrate a blatant disregard of the policy adopted in 2007 by 
UCI, which you yourself have previously acknowledged, under which UCI will not 
enforce requests by campus groups to prohibit videotaping of events such as the 
one described above. 
 
Here is what happened. 
 
Shortly before the event started, the issue of videotaping came up.  The other 
journalist had set up a video camera on a small tripod in an unobtrusive 
location in the room. I was  nearby and was prepared to videotape from my seat 
with my own hand-held recorder. An MSU student approached us and told us  that 
videotaping would not be allowed. At that point, I gave my now-standard 
response, namely,  that this was a public event at a public university, that the 
issue had been  previously resolved,  and that people had the right to 
videotape. I added that if a campus police officer or university official 
instructed me to stop, I would comply .  A few minutes later, I walked outside 
and continued the discussion with the MSU gentleman  in an attempt to resolve 
the matter quietly and civilly. He requested that I not videotape the film 
(titled Duma), which was to be shown at the outset of the program, because of 
copyright issues. I naturally agreed to comply with this request and added that 
I also would not videotape any students,  as is my policy. A few minutes later, 
a  female MSU member approached   our seats and repeated the request not to 
videotape the speaker. I repeated my contention that we had a right to do so, 
but that I myself would not tape the film or videotape students. She then asked 
if I would comply if the speaker, Ms. Qutami, were to ask that I not  videotape 
her talk.  My response, again, was that I would comply with such a request  only 
if a campus police officer or university official directed me not to tape.  I 
also voiced the opinion to her that they might be inviting legal problems if 
they prevented people from recording. I repeated my promise that I would not 
tape the film or the students. 
 
The event began and the film  started; as I had promised, I did not record the 
film. A few minutes later, three Campus Police officers (Sgt Chon, Officer Sloan 
and Officer Patton) entered the room and asked to speak to me and the other 
videographer outside.  The Campus Police stated their position that if the event 
organizers did not want any videotaping, we should comply with that wish. I 
repeated my contention that we had the right to record  at a public event held 
at a public university, open to students and the community. 
 
I also told them that just one year prior, at a talk given by MSU guest speaker 
Mr. Miko Peled,   the MSU had similarly tried to prevent me from taping.  In 
that instance,  you agreed with my ability to record. You also advised me that 
you had informed the MSU of my right to do so. In addition, last year I had 
consulted with Campus Police officers regarding the issue and was told that I 
indeed had the right to film.  Officer Chon claimed that my information was 
erroneous. He asked for the name of the police officer involved last year, and 
although I had forgotten his name,  I described his physical appearance and 
noted that I thought he was a senior officer in the UCIPD. 
 
It was clear from the outset that the Campus Police intended to  support the 
MSU's position, so I told them that I was going to follow their orders.  The 
other journalist stated his case, but we both agreed to abide by the Campus 
Police directives (although I stated that the legal question raised by this 
prohibition on recording needed to be resolved). The two aforementioned MSU 
members, who were both present, agreed that there was no problem with us 
returning to the room as long as we didn't record.  I should underline that the 
officers were courteous and professional, and the discussion was civil at all 
times. I mentioned to the officers that there were important legal 
considerations at stake.   We then returned to the room. 
 
As you are surely aware and as a reminder, the question of whether members of 
the public can videotape public events on public university campuses had 
previously been an issue of contention  at UCI.  In 2007, former State 
Assemblyman Charles S.“Chuck” DeVore successfully asserted his and others’ right 
to videotape an MSU event. I am enclosing a copy of a 2007 Orange County 
Register article  regarding this issue, which contains the text of Mr. DeVore’s 
letter to Chancellor Michael Drake. This article can be found at 
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/speech-484746-hate-msu.html 
 
In addition, The Daily Pilot confirmed in 2007 that UCI had changed its policy 
so as  to allow audience members to videotape public events on campus.  I am 
enclosing a copy of that article for your convenience.  This  article can be 
found at 
http://articles.dailypilot.com/2007-10-19/news/dpt-hillel19_1_uc-irvines-campus-
uci-officials 
 
As I have already stated, the Campus Police officers were courteous and 
professional. The conversation was civil on all sides. However, I believe that 
the Campus Police acted in error in not allowing me to videotape. ( I should 
mention that the Campus Police dealt with me and the other journalist 
identically, as one unit.)  This was a public event on a public campus, not a 
private discussion , and neither the MSU nor its speakers can legitimately claim 
any expectation of privacy.  Moreover, this particular speaker has addressed 
numerous conferences all over the world, and many of her presentations are 
available for wide viewing over the Internet, so she clearly has no concern 
about being recorded.. 
 
Therefore, I respectfully ask that you advise me as follows: 
1. If  UCI’s policy in this matter has changed since 2007, please provide me 
with a copy of UCI’s new written policy, as well as the legal basis under 
federal and state law supporting such new policy. 
2. If UCI’s policy, in fact, has not changed, then please so confirm and please 
advise me as to why the Campus Police forbade videotaping. 
 
Please send your response to me at gfouse@cox.net. 
 
As you well know, the issue of the Israel-Palestinian conflict is a major issue 
of contention on college campuses, not just at UCI or in California, but 
throughout the country. I have been writing my blog, which covers this issue as 
well as many other topical political matters, on a daily basis for over 
sevenyears.  My national and international readership is very interested in 
foreign policy and the discourse on college campuses surrounding Middle East 
affairs, and I have already received many messages questioning the UCI Campus 
Police’s right to prohibit recording at last week’s event.  This is arguably an 
unnecessary area of additional controversy that we should all wish to avoid. 
 
 Please note that I am consulting with legal experts on this matter, since I 
strongly believe that rights to free expression are central to our liberties. 
 
 I would respectfully request that you respond to the questions I have posed in 
this letter within seven days, so that I may keep my advisors informed of your 
official position.  Again, please direct your responses to (deleted). 
 
 
Sincerely, 
 
 
Gary C Fouse 
Adjunct teacher 
UC Irvine Extension 
(English Language Programs for Internationals) 
 
 
cc:  Foundation for Individual Rights 
 

On May 12, Dean Talesh responded via e-mail and told me he had referred the matter to UCIPD Chief Paul Henisey. The same date, I also received an email from UCIPD Lt. Joseph Riess, and we arranged to meet that same afternoon in his office.

In that meeting, which was very cordial, Lt Riess told me that the UCI policy regarding videotaping of public events had not changed since 2007 when they announced that such taping of public events was permitted. On behalf of the department, he apologized for the incident and said that his officers had erred in enforcing the Muslim Student Union's prohibition on videotaping. I reiterated what I said in my letter that the officers were courteous and professional at all times, I just believed that they were in error.

Lt Riess also said that a training bulletin was being sent out to the entire department reminding them of the public's right to videotape. I requested a copy of that, and he said he would have to clear it with the chief. He also was not sure whether there was such a policy on file with the UCIPD, but offered to check. I requested a copy of that as well if it exists since I wanted to avoid future problems. I suggested that they also notify the Muslim Student Union of their policy as well.

Finally, I mentioned that beyond UCI, this has been a problem on many university campuses across the nation including UCSD and that I thought the issue should be brought into a federal court since the First Amendment was national in scope and should not depend on each university's policy.

Here is a copy of an e-mail I sent to Lt Riess on May 13.

Dear Lt Riess, 
 
I want to thank you for taking the time to meet with me yesterday in regards to 
the videotaping incident on May 1. I also want to thank you for the 
acknowledgement that UCI policy does, in fact, permit videotaping of public 
events and your apology on behalf of the UCIPD. I also appreciate the fact that 
UCIPD is issuing a training bulletin to that effect and would appreciate a copy 
of it if possible. 
 
As we discussed, it is important that all parties concerned be aware of what is 
permitted at such events so as to avoid misunderstandings and unpleasant 
incidents in the future. In particular, sponsoring organizations and speakers 
must understand that videotaping of public events on campus is permitted and 
cannot be infringed upon. I hope you might be amenable to any future suggestions 
as to how future UCI students and UCIPD officers can be kept abreast of the 
policy. 
 
Finally, as I stated, this issue goes far beyond UC Irvine as it is a recurring 
problem on other US campuses, including UCSD, where the administration is 
enforcing the MSA ban on videotaping. This is a First Amendment issue that, in 
my view, should be settled universally in a court rather than be dictated by 
individual campus policy. 
 
Again, thank you for taking the time to discuss this issue. 
 
 
Sincerely, 
 
 
Gary Fouse 
Adj teacher 
UCI Ext 

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

The issue now as I see it is to pursue this issue with other universities. While we have 

prevailed in the case of UC Irvine, other universities, like UCSD, are enforcing the mandatesof the MSAs and Students for Justice in Palestine to prohibit audience members from 

videotaping their speakers. This is a violation of the First Amendment and should be 

addressed in the courts.

Anti-Israel Teach-in at UC Irvine

On January 23, a group of UC Irvine professors in the School of Humanities, apparently associated with the recently-formed Faculty for Justice in Palestine, held a 2-hour teach-in event at UC Irvine, which I attended. The screen at the front of the room announced the title of the event, "Genocide in Palestine". The event consisted of short presentations by UCI professors trying to make the case that Israel should be prosecuted by the International Court of Justice (ICJ)  for genocide. South Africa, which has a pretty spotty human rights record both during and after apartheid, has lodged a complaint against Israel before the  ICJ in the Hague charging the Jewish state with genocide. The ICJ is the UN's highest court, but this is not a criminal trial like those that would be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court (ICC).

I was sitting in the very back of the room with two like-minded friends and colleagues. Outside, a colleague from the Counter Jihad Coalition was passing out informative pamphlets about the terrorist organization, Hamas. I am guessing there were 70-80 people present, mostly students, and that number dwindled over the course of two hours. Some students may have had to get to class or perhaps were simply bored by the dry presentations. All in all, it was boring and disgusting at the same time-quite an accomplishment. As is the custom with these groups, they did not want to be filmed.

The moderator was Professor Susan Morrissey, who teaches Russian studies in the School of Humanities. She introduced the "panelists", and at one point in her introduction, Morrissey asked the audience not to film. (They never learn; more about that later). As for questions from the audience, she pointed out that there were note cards on each chair, and questions could be written and passed up to the front. I chose not to engage in that exercise.

The panelists present were Ian Coller, an Australian who is UCI faculty, David Theo Goldberg, from South Africa, who is also a member of the UCI faculty and a long-time anti-Israel activist, and Mark LeVine, a UCI history professor, occasional op-ed writer for Al Jazeera, and also a long-time critic of Israel. 

The program began with a video clip of South African legal counsel Adila Hassim addressing the ICJ and trying to argue that Israel was guilty of genocide. There was no mention in the clip of what Hamas did on October 7.

That was followed by a Skype appearance by a fellow named Joshua Niyo from someplace on the other side of the world giving the audience an explanation of the international definition of genocide. Niyo, whom I believe is from Africa, has been associated with the UCLA School of Law, and is apparently now on the staff of UC Irvine's law school as a lecturer.

I want to interject at this point that I took notes. The entire two-hour event was quite boring. There was not a lot of red meat, and it was hard to sit there for two hours even if I had been supportive of the event (which I was not).  There were only a handful of passing references to October 7, and I want to try and be fair and list those as they occurred.

First was Niyo.  As elements under the international definition of genocide that meet the criteria of ICJ jurisdiction, he stated that there must be a specific intent to commit genocide, that genocide must be the only possible explanation for the acts that occurred as opposed to crimes against humanity and war crimes. As for South Africa's standing to bring a case, Niyo said that every state (nation) has a common interest in the (1948) Convention on Genocide. 

After Niyo came Ian Coller, who talked about genocide in its historical context. He talked about Rwanda, Bosnia, the Serbs, and Bangladesh.  He made a reference to "collective guilt" referring to Israel's response against Hamas after October 7.

Then came David Theo Goldberg. He made a very brief reference to the "horrors of October 7", then moved on to other issues. He gave an overview of the history of Israel-South Africa relations going back to the apartheid era. He mentioned that Israel had trained Burmese (Myanmar) forces in the surveillance of the Rohingya (Muslim minority). He also made reference to the 2014 police shooting of Michael Brown (Ferguson, Missouri) and referred to Israel having trained that particular police department. In actuality, the former chief of the St Louis County Police, Timothy Fitch, had attended a counter-terrorism seminar in Israel in 2011 sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League but had retired by the time of the Brown shooting and subsequent riots in which the St Louis County Police were involved in restoring order. By the way, the police shooting of Brown was thoroughly investigated by the Obama Justice Department, and the officer was determined to have been acting in self-defense. The officer involved in the shooting was with the Ferguson Police Department.

Goldberg further made references to the military relations between Israel and South Africa during the 1970s and added that at one point, South Africans had received training in Israel for a year. In 1981, according to Goldberg, South Africa used drones supplied by Israel in its border conflict with Angola. 

Then came LeVine. He opened his remarks by pointing out to the audience that we were sitting on stolen Native land.  He added that "we are the beneficiaries of the most successful genocide of all time". He then talked about "settler colonialism", a favorite buzz term for the pro-Palestinian crowd, and linked it with the term genocide.

LeVine then stated that some of the families of Israeli victims/hostages (October 7) had sent a letter to the ICJ accusing Hamas of genocide. He added that he hoped the ICJ would take it up because it would be interesting. Later, he added that in his view, the ICJ should consider the entire issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict including the "occupation".

At another point, he stated that "we all know the Palestinians are indigenous".

In what was the widest reference to Hamas and the events of October 7, LeVine posed the question: "Is Hamas genocidal"? He asked why Hamas kidnapped hundreds of people to exchange for Palestinians held by Israel when they could have taken just one soldier. "Has something changed with Hamas?" He brought up the question of whether Hamas was a creation of the Israelis. Did Israel encourage the creation of Hamas? As stated previously, LeVine suggested a tribunal to examine all claims (on both sides) including the "occupation".

That was followed by q and a (written questions submitted to the panel.)

One question directed to LeVine asked him to name his sources for claiming Israel encouraged Hamas. LeVine replied for the questioner to see him after the session and he would supply him with several sources in French and other languages.

On a couple of occasions during the q and a, LeVine stated that just because one was a victim of genocide did not justify them committing genocide. He then closed out by mentioning the need for the left to be rooted in the global movement, climate justice, environmental justice, and Palestinian justice.

In closing, Morrissey told the audience that the Irvine City Council was meeting later that night to consider a call for a cease-fire and she encouraged the audience to attend if they resided in Irvine.

Videotaping and other pleasantries

One of my associates who was sitting with me in the very back of the room began to videotape using his cell phone. About 30 minutes into the event, a young lady came over to him and asked him not to videotape. My friend replied that since this was a public event at a public venue, he absolutely had the right to videotape, an argument I have had to make numerous times at UCI when attending and videotaping these events. (I myself did not videotape this event.). The young lady was joined by a young man sitting a couple of rows in front of us who also requested my friend not to videotape. At one point, I told the two that it was his right to videotape. They gave up but came back letter to press the issue. My friend refused to give in and continued to film intermittently. I subsequently learned that another member of the audience was asked to stop filming and that she refused.

After the event, the young man returned to where we were sitting. He was courteous but insisted that there should not have been any videotaping and said that we needed permission to videotape. I politely informed him that I had been through this exercise many times at UCI and told him of one past experience I had where campus police had asked me not to videotape per the request of Students for Justice in Palestine. I added that I subsequently received an apology from the campus police and was informed from that point on, their officers would be informed of our right to videotape. The State of California policy and UCI policy is that videotaping of public events in public venues is allowed as long as there is no disruption. The young man told me that we had been disruptive because he could hear us (whispering) to each other in the back row. I told him that we were whispering, and if he heard our words, I was sorry but there was no intent to disrupt anybody-as Students for Justice in Palestine routinely does. He acknowledged to me that I was being courteous to him-as he was with me.

My comment:

This entire argument about genocide is a red herring. First of all, the Palestinian population has been exploding for several decades now. On the other hand, Hamas has expressed in its very charter the desire to destroy the Jewish state and even has quoted in its charter the Islamic hadith about the Day of Atonement, where the Muslims will fight the Jews, the Jew will hide behind a tree or rock, and the tree/rock will call out, "O Muslim There is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him!"' Genocidal? You be the judge.

As I have pointed out previously, what did they expect Israel to do after the atrocities of October 7? What did we do after Pearl Harbor? Yes, we and our allies bombed every major German and Japanese city to rubble, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, but has anybody ever argued that we were trying to commit genocide against the German and Japanese people? No. We were fighting for our survival just as Israel is fighting for her survival. Unfortunately, the terrorists of Hamas have a long-established policy of using their own people as human shields. Even given that, the Israeli military tries to limit civilian casualties mostly by actually warning civilians that they need to evacuate-even evacuate specific buildings. Genocide? Intent to destroy the Palestinians as a people? No.

My final point is this: Even if one were a critic of Israel and supported the Palestinian narrative, any decent-thinking person, particularly a Jew, should have concluded that October 7 and the unspeakable horrors visited upon innocent Israeli civilians, to the point of babies being beheaded, put into ovens to burn, the rapes and tortures, and with American citizens among the victims and hostages, was a game changer. They should have said, "This is not what I support." I am not saying that any of the panelists actually support the acts of Hamas on October 7, but their unwillingness to discuss it in detail or come out with any strong denunciations of Hamas are disappointing to put it mildly. None of those grisly details were raised or discussed in this event. The horror of October 7 received scant attention, and the "condemnations", if one can call them that, were tepid (I did not hear the word "condemn" actually used). They should be embarrassed to talk about "genocide" by Israelis when Hamas, a US-designated terrorist organization, has made it clear-in their own charter-that genocide is exactly what they have in mind for every Jew in Israel. And at a time when Jews all over the world are being subjected to a resurgence in anti-Semitism not seen since the Holocaust, a resurgence mostly fanned by the pro-Palestinian movement, mostly on our university campuses, what do they do? They side with Israel's enemies, as they always have.  

For years, I have been watching these spectacles at UCI and other places. The fact that they have doubled down in the wake of October 7 and the barbarities committed by Hamas is beyond comprehension. They, of course, will deny they support Hamas only that they advocate for the Palestinian people. Indeed, Hamas is barely mentioned in passing by this crowd with good reason. Israel has declared war justifiably on Hamas, not the Palestinian people. It is the terrorists and butchers of Hamas that the Israeli army is fighting, an enemy that deliberately puts its own civilians in front of their fighters, rocket launchers, etc. (which the panelists also neglected to mention) in order to win the propaganda war against Israel, quite effectively I might add. Look at how many useful idiots they have fooled in the US, especially on our university campuses.

America Trashed by Professor in UC Irvine Speaking Event

On Monday evening the Muslim Student Union of UC Irvine culminated its Islam Awareness Week with a  speaking appearance by UCI Professor of Film and Media Sohail Daulatzai. His topic was the life of Malcolm X, who is Daulatzai's ultimate hero. It was an hour and a half of a sickening trashing of America by a man who came to this country as a boy from Pakistan. This was the second time I have listened to this man tear apart this country. It is not pleasant listening, but  like the previous time in May 2013, I felt it was important to attend, videotape it, and report it. Of course, as always, the MSU tried to prevent me from filming. However, I politely asserted my rights and filmed it anyway.

Prior to the event, I contacted the campus police and advised them I was attending the event. Over the past year, I had been assured by the UCIPD that I had every right to videotape, that they had been in error last year when they prevented me from videotaping a speech per the request of the MSU, and that all student organizations had been advised of the videotaping policy at UCI.

Nevertheless, as Daulatzai was being introduced to the sparse crowd of about 35 MSU students, the young lady moderator announced that recording was not allowed and anyone attempting to record would be asked to leave. I promptly raised my hand and politely informed her that this was a public event and that the right to film was absolute and had been affirmed to me by the campus police with whom I had just(again) consulted. The event began and I commenced to record. If the video shows the back of a head of a student in front of me that's because the young man sat in front of me in an attempt to obstruct my view. He only partially succeeded. However, it is the audio-the words- that matter.

About 30-40 minutes later (about 16:10 in the 2nd video segment), a young MSU student approached me and politely asked me to cease recording. I once again explained my right to film and showed him a brochure with the UCI policy that allowed the public to videotape as long as it was in compliance with UCI policy 900.30, of which I also had a copy. The young man said that section 900.30 had a portion which allowed the sponsoring organization to ban videotaping. (If that is in there, I sure can't find it.) At any rate, I politely suggested that he consult with the UCIPD and that if a campus police officer instructed me not to film, I would cease. He agreed and left. No campus police officer ever came into the room. I continued to film assuming that the UCIPD had explained the policy to him. As stated, I have been advised by UCIPD that all student organizations have been advised of the UCI videotaping policy. Either the MSU didn't get the memo or they tried to get around it. On Tuesday, I contacted the UCIPD and related the events. They responded that they would reach out to the MSU.

It is hard to summarize what Daalatzai said over the course of 90 minutes (including q and a) because he rambles on all over the place. He also has a very noticeable verbal tic, in which he ends his sentences with "right?" In 90 minutes, he must have done it over 500 times. He is also a boring speaker in spite of the nasty things he says about this country.

At any rate, Daulatzai took his audience through the life of Malcolm X interspersed with three video clips of Malcolm's public utterances. Here are some notable things Daulatzai had to say: (I will be paraphrasing, but the video is there.)

He said that Martin Luther King was about to leave the civil rights movement when he was assassinated because he had given up on America. He had reportedly stated at some point that he was afraid they were "integrating into Hell". Daulatzai also seemed to imply a connection between King's coming out against the Viet Nam war and his assassination.

Daulatzai spoke of an understanding between civil rights leaders and the government during the Cold War in that they (civil rights leaders) would support the Cold War in exchange for civil rights reforms for American blacks.

He also claimed that Patrice Lamumba, the Congolese leader who was ousted from power and executed in 1961, was murdered and cut into pieces by the CIA. Did you know that?

"Yeh, I did."

Well, perhaps, but even Wikipedia has a more sober account.

Of course, there were the requisite references to Ferguson, Chapel Hill, Eric Garner et al. As to Chapel Hill, Daulatzai proclaimed the murders of three Muslim students as a hate crime. Did you know that?

"Yeh, I did."


He must have an inside source with the police investigating the case.

In reply to a question on how different (ethnic) parts of the Muslim community could come together, Daulatzai again rambled all over the place. He started talking about Iraq!! He talked about how our military killed ("by conservative estimates") 500,000 Iraqis. He quoted other estimates that said 1.2 to 1.3 million Iraqis were killed by our military. Of course he did not qualify that by saying anything about the number of Iraqi troops or later insurgents who were killed in battle, nor did he say anything about Iraqis killed by post-invasion insurgents. The impression left is that the US military killed 500,000-1.3 million Iraqis- period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

I wasn't going to ask any questions during the q and a, but toward the end, he invited comments, so I raised my hand twice. Of course, I was ignored. Here is what I would have said:

"I am old enough to remember Malcolm X and recall when he was assassinated. Malcolm was killed by the Nation of Islam on the orders of Elijah Mohammad because he (Malcolm) had left the NoI, had publicly criticized it and was exposing the corruption and sexual abuses of Elijah Mohammad. (Daulatzai had praised the NoI in his remarks but papered over the fact that they had killed Malcolm.) Furthermore, history has shown that those like King who followed the path of non-violence have been proven correct while those who preached violence have been proven to be wrong. Malcolm X, for his part, did nothing to advance integration in this country. Finally, to the young people in the audience- in spite of all our dark chapters and mistakes in our history, America is still the greatest and freest country in the world, and it does deserve your love and loyalty in spite of what the speaker has told you tonight."

I doubt that would have made much of an impact. As we prepared to leave, the young man who had been sitting in front of me told me I needed to get a life.

This man Daulatzai was probably not even born when Malcolm X died. He didn't live through the civil rights era in America. Yet he implied that the civil rights movement accomplished next to nothing and that the conditions for black Americans have not improved since those days. Not having lived in America through that era what frame of reference does he have other than what he has read in books or been told by others?

It is sad and alarming that our universities have professors like this (of film and media, no,less)  who
are putting these ideas into the minds of our young people-especially young Muslim students. Daulatzai, for better or worse, has his right of free speech, and he is entitled to his opinion about America. That right also includes the rights of the public to attend public events and record what is spoken at those events. As a teacher, I do not videotape students or what they say. I only begin my recording when the event's speaker begins. The public has a right to know what is being said in public speaking events on public university campuses.

So here it is. It is long. It is boring. The visual quality is less than optimal.There are a couple of brief snippets missing (at the beginning and end) because the memory card was being changed.  But I hope the reader will take the time to listen to it because it is that important to be aware of what our students are being taught in American universities.

Hatem Bazian: The Mossad Planted a Chip in My Brain

UC Berkeley professor Hatem Bazian's recent blog posting smacks of "They're coming to take me away" as he tells us of a secret Mossad operation at UC Berkeley to monitor and discredit him. "Psy-Group", he calls it.

http://www.hatembazian.com/content/private-mossad-on-campus-and-no-one-is-alarmed/

Perhaps we should have seen the signs of paranoia when Bazian created his silly Islamophobia Research and Documentation Center at UCB several years ago. They hold a conference every year complete with "call for papers" and the whole nine yards dedicated to the proposition that for some unknown reason, Muslims are being picked on in America. Of course, he has nothing to say when Muslims "pick on" others in Muslim-majority countries.

To make one of his points, Bazian points to an article  in the New Yorker in February by Adam Entous and Ronan Farrow, who wrote of the alleged activities of Psy-Group, who they termed as some sort of private Mossad. Bazian also refers us to another article written in Febrarury by Entous which specifically talks about Bazian. In the latter article, Entous states:

"Although it is unclear who left the fliers, internal documents from a private Israeli intelligence firm called Psy-Group show that, at the time of the incident, the company, and possibly other private investigators, were targeting Bazian because of his leadership role in promoting the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement, known as B.D.S."

Yes, and about that same time, Fousesquawk was also criticizing Bazian. So what?

Even though Entous puts Bazian's photo on the article and begins its first paragraph with the professor, he himself fails to document the link with Psy-Group.

And just what is a "private Israeli intelligence firm" by definition?  Is the Investigative Project on Terrorism, for example, a "private American intelligence firm", and if so, what is the connection to the American government? And who are those "possibly other private investigators"? Not only does it appear that Bazian is jumping to conclusions, it also appears that at least one of his sources (Entous) is also jumping to conclusions. 

In his own article, Bazian ominously quotes an Israeli intelligence official as saying:

“Social media allows you to reach virtually anyone and to play with their minds…You can do whatever you want. You can be whoever you want. It’s a place where wars are fought, elections are won, and terror is promoted."

Imagine that. Social media as formers of opinion. Who knew? 

Bazian continues:

"The documents provide a clear indication that the Psy-Group targeted all aspects of my social media and internet profiles as well as pursuing any criminal records.  After I read the documents, I believe that the Psy-Group did break into my Twitter account and post despicable anti-Semitic messages to shift the discussion around away from my work on BDS and Palestine activism."

Leaving aside the semantic difference between the words, "clear" and "indication", is Bazian really claiming that this Psy-Group broke into his Twitter account and posted anti-Semitic material in his name? One assumes he is referring to this incident which happened in 2017 when he was accused of  re-tweeting anti-Semitic images. At that time, Bazian claimed:

"Bazian then offered one of the least convincing apologies in a season that has been full of them. “I did not realize or read the full text in detail,” he claimed, as though the material he shared was subtle and required careful analysis to determine that it was insanely bigoted. He then proceeded to insist that he has Jewish friends (citing “the anti-racist work that I do fighting anti-Semitism with progressive Jewish groups”) and that he is only anti-Israel, not anti-Semitic, despite obvious evidence to the contrary (”my issue is with Zionism … not with Judaism or Jews”).
-Tablet Magazine


To be fair, maybe Bazian (in his own article) is referring to some other time when anti-Semitic material showed up on his Twitter account. Who knows? 


But if the Mossad or this Psy-Group hacked in to his Twitter account and planted anti-Semitic images in his name, did they also manufacture that famous 2004 video where Bazian is speaking to a crowd and calling for an intifada in the US? Is it the Mossad or Psy-Group that put words in his mouth when he reportedly told a campus audience to look around the campus and count the number of buildings with Jewish names on them? Was it the Mossad or Psy-Group that put the words into his mouth when he reportedly mouthed that quaint little refrain from the hadith that tells of the Day of Judgment when Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, which will call out, "Oh Muslim. There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him"?

To be fair, I have not seen or heard any videotape of Bazian saying the latter two quotes, but I did pointedly ask him about them in 2010 when he spoke at UC Irvine. I never did get a straight answer out of him.

"Moreover, I believe that my UC Berkeley courses on Islam in America and Deconstructing Islamophobia were subject to this intelligence gathering operation.  The annual Islamophobia conference at UC Berkeley was subject to intense surveillance which sought to record and intimidate participants and those attending as an audience.  The harassment and surveillance included the blanketing of the campus with posters referring and labeling me as a terrorist as well as putting flyers on all the cars on my street and in downtown Berkeley parking lot that is a block away from city hall."

I don't know who these people are Bazian is referring to. Are they Mossad agents? CIA officers? I am also not certain how open to the public these events are that Bazian hosts, but if they take place on the UCB campus, a public university, then there's a good chance they are open to the public. As one who has attended countless such events at UC Irvine (including hearing Bazian speak twice), I videotape and record many of the speakers because I have the legal right to ( I actually did not videotape either Bazian event.) And it is not surveillance because I do it openly. And just for the record in case Bazian is wondering: I am not employed by Mossad (or anybody else). Nor have I called him a terrorist.

"The university and the City of Berkeley leadership provided the air space and the hospitable environment for all of this targeting to become normal and acceptable since it includes all these a activities as falling under the Palestine-Israel conflict.  Rather than condemning this foreign intelligence intervention into the campus and city life; they issue statements that speak of a need for civility without ever mentioning who is doing all of this targeted harassment, spying and who is the target.  One comes to consider the spying and campus organizing to be on the same level and what we are dealing with is the hostilities from the “Middle East” coming to campus. The university and City of Berkeley leadership want to play the “peace process” mediator on campus and the City rather than coming to the defense of academic freedom, freedom of speech and defending the safety and well-being of Palestinian, Arab and Muslim faculty, students and community members."

Nonsense. Both Berkeley and the university are left-wing bastions with little tolerance for any expression in favor of Israel. In contrast, it is the pro-Palestinian narrative that is favored. Pro-Israel events and speakers run the risk of being disrupted while campus police stand around like potted plants.

"At UC Berkeley and the UC System, the university adopted a student group and a project, Olive Tree Initiative (http://www.olivetreeinitiative.org/) after the UC Irvine 11 case and used it to frame a counter-narrative and strategy directed at isolating and neutralizing the work of SJP and the BDS movement.  This means that the university, as an institution, was actively working as a front for the interest of a foreign government and targeting faculty and students who are exercising their academic and constitutional rights to speak and organized against what they consider it to be an injustice.  You can also see the case of Professor Rabab Abdulhadi at San Francisco State University and how the university leadership coordinated its actions with the local ADL, JCRC and the Israeli consulate to disrupt her academic program and cancel two lines of faculty to be hired to assist in building the AMED program in Ethnic Studies."

More nonsense. I am quite familiar with the Olive Tree Initiative (OTI) since it was inaugurated at UC Irvine. It was and is a thinly-disguised program to take students of various backgrounds to Israel and the West Bank and supposedly expose them to both sides of the conflict. However, even though students have met with Israeli Knesset members and residents of the controversial settlements, it was and is slanted in favor of the Palestinian narrative. In addition, the University worked in concert with activists affiliated with the International Solidarity Movement, who served as tour guides in the West Bank. It may very well be that members of the Muslim Student Association or Students for Justice in Palestine (the latter co-founded by Bazian) had no desire to go because they couldn't stomach the idea of meeting pro-Israel voices, but it doesn't change the fact that OTI is slanted in favor of the Palestinian narrative. I knew of four Jewish students at UCI and UCLA who made the trip and came back only to join SJP. And let us not forget that in 2009, the students were shepherded into a meeting with Aziz Dweik, a Hamas official in the West Bank.

As for Rabab Abdulhadi, Bazian is defending a figure who for years has brought national embarrassment to SFSU through her agenda-driven (Palestinian) "scholarship" and mentorship of the General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS), who made news a few years back when they were spreading murderous expressions of wanting to kill Israeli soldiers across the SFSU campus.

Hatem Bazian is an activist with two agendas, Israel and Islamophobia. He has chosen to enter the public arena. He travels the country giving speeches attacking Israel and plenty of individuals. He has been accused of making several anti-Semitic expressions. Of course, he, like anyone else in America, has the right to express his views. However, he is not immune from criticism. That means that others are free to challenge what he says in public. His opponents are free to show up when he speaks in public and document what he says. He need not worry. Nobody is going to haul him off to jail. But this latest posting tells me that he is becoming very paranoid. Even by Berkeley standards, he is a joke and an embarrassment.

Omar Barghouti at UC Irvine-February 4, 2013

On February 4, 2013, Omar Barghouti brought his traveling slide show on boycott divest and sanctions against Israel to UC Irvine, hosted by the Students for Justice in Palestine, a warmed over version of the Muslim Student Union. Barghouti, who was born in Kuwait or Qatar (He wouldn't tell me which) is the classic example of the guy who bites the hand that feeds him. As he is advocating for the universal boycott of Israel, which he still insists is an "apartheid state" like South Africa, he is a student at Tel Aviv University. A critic of the US as well, which he claims is racist, he also studied at Columbia, where by his own description, he was a student activist.

If you have ever watched British twit Ben White or UC Berkeley propagandist Hatem Baziam speak, you know what to expect from Barghouti. Dripping arrogance, he goes through his slide show of anti-Israel posters, quotes from Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King (addressing other issues which Barghouti applies to Israel), plus photos and quotes of such "luminaries" as UC Professor Judith Butler, Naomi Klein, some guy from Pink Floyd, and other entities which support BDS, such as the Presbyterian Church. Like Bazian and White, Barghouti drones on in a flat monotonous tone.

Last night, he spoke in front of a packed hall of about 30 people.

Naturally, at the outset, the moderator, a student from the SJP/MSU told us that no video taping was allowed.

Wrong.

At that point, I interrupted and advised him that this issue had been settled years ago when a local state elected official, (Chuck DeVore) had attended an MSU event and was told not to videotape. DeVote set them straight fast.

"This is a public event at a public university, and we have every right to videotape", I said.

At this point, the young man suggested I go outside and consult with a campus policeman on the matter. I replied that he could go talk to the cop and if the cop wanted to come in and tell me not to videotape, he could. "It's the law." At that point, the matter was dropped and I began to film from the front row as Barghouti took the podium.

As you can see from the (3rd) video, I got the first question and asked him where he was born Kuwait or Qatar according to different sources). He didn't want to answer,. Nor did he want to confirm that he had grown up in Egypt. "Irrelevant", said he. Naturally,. he could see where I was going with the line-that he was a non-Israeli studying at Tel Aviv University, which makes him a hypocrite. The moderator jumped in, and he and Barghouti insisted I get to the question. As you can see from the video, things went down from there when I called him a hypocrite as Barghouti called for another question from the audience.  After I sat down, another MSU/SJP student came over to me and threatened to call in the campus cop, which I invited him to do. (He didn't.) Later, when the young Jewish lady I was sitting next to got into a heated exchange with Barghouti over the "apartheid" issue and referred to his lies, the cop came down and gently told her to simply ask a question.

Anyway, here is the video of this "event" in 4 installments. Try not to fall asleep.

1

2

3

4

This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the crap we have to put up with on our university campuses.  This is no isolated incident. These anti-Israel, anti-America speakers are as thick as cockroaches on our campuses. Is it any wonder we have a problem with anti-Semitism on our campuses, particularly here in the UC system? 

This guy, Bargouti, has been educated in Israel and the US. Yet, he is trying to destroy the Jewish state. In the meantime, he makes references to "American racism" and bemoans American support for Israel on our own soil. Yes, he has the constitutional right to spout whatever drivel he wants, just as I have the right to tell him what I think of him. This young man has no idea of American history and what the American people are all about. He consistently refers to Martin Luther King, whom he knows only from history books. He has no concept of the changes that have occurred in this country since the time of Dr. King. I do because I remember when King was murdered when this putz probably wasn't even born.

Go home, Barghouti.

UCSB Vice Chancellor's Shameful Message re: Teacher Incident

In response to the incident that occurred in recent days at the University of California at Santa Barbara, Vice Chancellor Michael Young has issue a long-winded diatribe that basically savages the two young girls who were victimized by a UCSB teacher.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/27/calif-school-apologizes-for-feminism-profs-alleged-attack-on-teenage-pro-lifer/?intcmp=latestnews

Below is the actual text:

March 21, 2014

To: Campus Community

Fr: Michael D. Young Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs

Re: Students and Free Speech at UCSB

Below you will find an email communication that I sent out earlier this week to all UCSB students expressing my views on free speech. Sincerely, Michael D. Young Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs

March 19, 2014

Dear Students:

Over the past several weeks, our campus has been visited by a number of outside groups and individuals coming here to promote an ideology, to promulgate particular beliefs (at times extreme beliefs), or simply to create discord that furthers a certain personal agenda. Some passionately believe in their causes, while others peddle hate and intolerance with less-than-noble aims. 

Whatever the motives and goals, the presence of such people and groups on campus can be disruptive and has the potential to draw us into the kind of conflict that puts at risk the quality of exchange of ideas that is fundamental to the mission of our university.

What is happening now is not new: evangelical types have been visiting UCSB and university campuses since time immemorial. What we see at UCSB today is simply the most recent generation of true believers, self-proclaimed prophets, and provocateurs. 

During the past few weeks, UCSB has been visited by various anti-abortion crusaders. Some have been considerate and thoughtful in promoting their message; others have openly displayed images that many in our community find distressing and offensive. 

We have also seen earnest and thoughtful religious missionaries, and we have seen proselytizers hawking intolerance in the name of religious belief. As a consequence of interactions with the more extreme of our visitors, students have expressed outrage, pain, embarrassment, fear, hurt, and feelings of harassment. 
Moreover, I have received requests that the campus prohibit the peddling of “fear,” “hate,” “intolerance,” and “discord” here at UCSB.

Those of you who know me are aware that I have strong views on the matter of intolerance. You also know that I hold equally strong views on the sanctity of free speech. If you have heard me speak at Convocation or at anti-hate events, or if you have seen me officiating at the Queer Wedding, you know that my message on both counts is clear. Recent events lead me to believe that this message bears repeating.

First, the principle of freedom of expression resides at the very foundation of our society and, most certainly, at the foundation of a world-class university such as UC Santa Barbara. Freedom and rights are not situational: we either have freedom of speech or we do not. We cannot pick and choose which views are allowed to be aired and who is allowed to speak. If that were the case, then only those in charge — those holding power — would determine who gets to speak and whose views are heard.

Second, freedom is not free. The price of freedom for all to speak is that, at times, everyone will be subjected to speech and expression that we, ourselves, find offensive, hateful, vile, hurtful, provocative, and perhaps even evil. So be it! Law and policy ban only an extremely narrow band of speech and expression-”yelling ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre,” for example, and child pornography. The price we pay to speak our own minds is allowing others to speak theirs, regardless of how oppositional their views are to our own. Our Founding Fathers-all white men of privilege, some even slave owners-got it right when designing the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Having firmly stated my support for freedom of expression, I hasten to follow with a lesson my mother taught me when I was a small child, a lesson that has remained with me the rest of my life and that I relay to our entering students every fall at Convocation. My mother taught me that just because you can say or do something doesn’t mean that you should. Civility plays an important role in how we choose to exercise our right to expression. We all have the right to say odious things, to display offensive slogans and placards, and to hurt and disrespect groups and individuals that disagree with us. The question is: should we? Should we engage in these behaviors just because we can or because they serve our political, religious, or personal agendas?

At UCSB, our students have proven that we are better than this. While it has not always been easy, time and again UCSB students have demonstrated that they can disagree about the critical issues of our time — fundamentally and passionately but within a framework of humanity and civility, respecting the dignity of those whose views they oppose. Time and time again, UCSB students have demonstrated that they understand their role in defining the character and quality of this campus community — revealing their unwillingness to lower themselves to the tactics of those whose agenda comes wrapped in intolerance and extremism.

And now we are tested once again, outsiders coming into our midst to provoke us, to taunt us and attempt to turn us against one another as they promote personal causes and agendas. If we take the bait, if we adopt negative tactics and engage in name calling, confrontation, provocation, and offensive behavior, then they win and our community loses. While urging you to engage with differing ideas and opinions in a civil manner, I also want to remind you that you have the option not to engage at all. You do not have to listen to, look at, or even acknowledge speech or expression that you find provocative or offensive. The Arbor Mall is a free speech area, as is the area in front of the University Center. If you do not want to be confronted by certain materials or expressions, you should avoid the free-speech areas when you expect that you might encounter them, or simply ignore them. I promise you the visitors will hate that.

And, finally, if you think demonstrators, activists, or proselytizers are violating the law, report them to the UC Police Department. If you think they are violating campus policies, report them to the Office of Student Life (OSL). Similarly, if you feel harassed or think you are being subjected to offensive speech or material as an involuntary audience, please contact the Office of Student Life immediately. Katya Armistead, Associate Dean of Student Life and Activities, can be reached at 805-893-8912. If you do not reach her, someone at the general OSL number (805-893-4550) will be able to relay your message to her. The campus regulations address UCSB’s free speech policies 
further:http://www.sa.ucsb.edu/Regulations/campus_activities.aspx<http://www.sa.ucsb.edu/Regulations/campus_activities.aspx> .

What I am suggesting may not be easy, and it may feel more satisfying (at least for the moment) to lash out. (My mom often reminded me that doing the right thing is difficult.) If you feel that you must respond, hold a peaceful, thoughtful, civil, and dignified counter-demonstration, and show how students engage intellectually and politically at UCSB.

Sincerely, Michael D. Young Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs

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

Fousesquawk comment:

This man should be fired. He is unfit to hold the position he holds. This is the most reprehensible piece of garbage I have ever seen in writing since I have been employed on a university campus. First he starts off by implying that these two young ladies, ages 16 and 21 are hate peddlers, self-proclaimed prophets and provocateurs. By implication, Young tars these girls with every negative adjective and noun in his letter. He ignores the alleged actions of the professor, which are captured on videotape as he attacks anybody from outside the campus with a message. If Dr Young doesn't like having outsiders and community members on his campus,  I have a news bulletin for him: The University of California at Santa Barbara is a public institution paid for by the people who pay for his salary. The public is allowed on campus subject to normal rules of conduct and behavior. I have yet to see where the two girls violated those norms. By accounts, they were demonstrating peacefully on a part of the campus designated as a free-speech zone.

Note how Young refers derisively to evangelical types as if that were something to be ashamed of. Note the reference to "anti-abortion crusaders" with images that some find disturbing.  Like photos of a real abortion? I always find it amazing people who support abortion but find the images offensive. Those must not be seen (lest people change their views on the topic).

And what do long-dead white men of privilege who owned slaves have to do with this discussion? What kind of back-handed slap was that?

In between all this, Young concedes that people have the right of free speech and says that the campus community should be above it all and not react to the provocations (by taunting the girls, taking their poster, and shoving them out of an elevator). In other words, buried in this diatribe is a vague message that the teacher should not have reacted as she did. No kidding.

This is the mentality that grips our universities. I can't tell you how disgusted I am at this letter.