r/moderatepolitics • u/awaythrowawaying • 2d ago
News Article US Justice Department sues UCLA alleging antisemitic educational environment
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-justice-department-sues-ucla-alleging-antisemitic-educational-environment-2026-05-26/12
u/Suspicious_Watch_978 1d ago
It's not really related to this specific topic, but antisemitism in general is getting pretty out of control. A few nutters have always been into it, which is true of everything no matter how distasteful, but lately I've seen it in people I absolutely never would've suspected.
For example, I have a much older friend, lifelong Democrat, wealthy, well-connected socially, educated, politically engaged, anti-Trump and all that jazz; on Saturday the topic of Israel came up in the context of the war in Iran, and he said, verbatim, "We're only attacking them because of Israel. I know Israel controls our government."
In retrospect I wish I would've pushed back, but as the young guy at the table I was already a bit off my game, and I was caught off guard by how cavalier it was. The fact that everyone else chuckled a bit and carried on like normal made it seem like it was maybe a joke, but I really don't think it was.
2
u/Least_Palpitation_92 1d ago
Claiming a foreign government is doing something does not equal antisemitism.
2
u/Baderkadonk 1d ago
Well this actually shows why I'm often skeptical about antisemitism complaints, they're often not antisemitic at all.
Israel is one of the main reasons we're in this war, but even if that wasn't true it still wouldn't be antisemitic to say so.
Criticizing a belligerent nation is okay and it does not mean someone is prejudiced against any particular religion.
Conflating the two is good for Israel and no one else.
-1
u/esotologist 1d ago
Israel does control our government, it is in fact the main reason we're in Iran.
Israel has Nukes, it is actually illegal for us to be supporting them under Us law.
0
15
u/Mantergeistmann 2d ago
Wasn't this already posted half a week ago? Or is this something new?
47
u/notapersonaltrainer 2d ago edited 2d ago
Perhaps you're thinking of these?
- Rise of Jew-hatred in US workplaces has worsened in past nine months, House labor subcommittee chair says
- House candidate Maureen Galindo pledges to send 'American zionists' to internment camp
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice leaves Democratic Party over antisemitism concerns
It's weird how we were constantly browbeaten about imperceptible microaggressions, implicit bias, or simply not having enough melanin for years.
But after televised jewish exclusions zones, "context dependent jewish genocide", politicians casually proposing sterilization concentration camps, jewish governor mansion arsons and street assassinations, and surging antisemitism that ramped before 2023, people are suddenly coming down with selective racism fatigue.
40
u/soboshka 2d ago
Why is it they always claims they're just opposed to the Israeli government and then take out their frustrations on regular Jewish people?
18
u/notapersonaltrainer 2d ago edited 1d ago
It's called a post-hoc rationalization. Notice the antisemitism surge started before 2023.
Antisemitism surged with the white adjacent guilt mania, alongside anti-asian violence and government condoned institutional racism against performant minorities. Israel responding to the biggest pogrom since the Holocaust was a bolt-on justification for what was already in motion.
23
u/lostroadrunner22 2d ago
Honestly. The left really needs to have a conversation about their antisemitism
7
u/Beautiful_Finger4566 1d ago
they're nominating a guy who had a literal SS tattoo to the Senate, so I wouldn't hold my breath
8
u/bashar_al_assad 1d ago
Well Galindo lost her primary so it seems like they did.
14
u/justafutz 1d ago
She also got 40% of the vote, so it doesn't seem like it. And others who are still in the same camp with only slightly-less-blatant comments won their primaries, like Chris Rabb, who suggested the massacre of Jews in Australia on Bondi Beach was a false flag by "Zionists", while Graham Platner is the nominee for Democrats in Maine's Senate election despite his history of racist, antisemitic, and misogynistic comments.
11
u/CloudApprehensive322 2d ago
Pretending as if the right doesn't have its own massive issues with antisemitism is laughable.
21
u/IllustriousHorsey 1d ago
Please highlight for me where anyone above claimed or pretended anything of that sort. If you can’t, then why are you bringing up non sequiturs? Though I’m 100% sure you’re discussing in good faith, it should be noted that other bad actors often use non sequiturs as a way of derailing conversations that paint themselves and their allies in a bad light.
But I’m sure that isn’t what’s going on here because this a place for good faith discussion. So would you please point out where in this conversation people were pretending the right doesn’t also have virulent antisemites on its side?
6
u/TheTeenageOldman 1d ago
Which no one is doing. It's sad to see people on the left decide there's an issue where they don't have to police themselves because "the right is equally as bad if not worse." It really takes the slogan "Speaking truth to power" and throws it right in the trash.
8
u/Interesting_Total_98 1d ago
The left doesn't deny the problem.
8
u/Interesting_Total_98 2d ago
Frivolous prosecutions from the DOJ have spiked as well, so I could see this case going either way.
-4
u/PreviousCurrentThing 1d ago
It's weird how we were constantly browbeaten about imperceptible microaggressions, implicit bias, or simply not having enough melanin for years.
It's weird how the people who spent the last ten+ years complaining about being browbeaten over microagressions and claims of "harm" being used to silence campus speech have adopted much of that same rhetoric to silence speech they don't like about Israel. Ben "facts don't care about your feelings" Shapiro had campus speaking events canceled because protesters said even allowing him to speak would constitute "harm," and now wants to suppress campus activism under the same logic.
I find it exhausting on both sides.
1
u/bettercaust 22h ago
It's weird how we were constantly browbeaten about imperceptible microaggressions, implicit bias, or simply not having enough melanin for years.
I'm not contesting the strain of antisemitism evident, but citing a single cringe tweet from 2020 doesn't really substantiate your complaint.
5
2d ago
[deleted]
-1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-3
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 2d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
5
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 1d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
-1
2d ago edited 2d ago
[deleted]
56
u/justafutz 2d ago
Isn’t it weird to see the rampant antisemitism that has been on campus and say that this type of action is actually not about antisemitism and is being pushed by shadowy networks of
JewsIsraelis?UCLA is a university where the encampments set up a Jew exclusion zone, and a federal judge already found that:
> In the year 2024, in the United States of America, in the State of California, in the City of Los Angeles, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith.
The university went along with it, or rather, did nothing about it until forced.
This latest complaint points out that UCLA’s own task force on antisemitism concluded that UCLA had been deliberately indifferent and failed to protect Jewish and Israeli students on campus, which is a violation of their civil rights. UCLA routinely received complaints about antisemitic conduct that violated its rules and routinely did nothing, according to the complaint.
You can complain about shadowy networks of foreign influence, but personally, I’m glad at least some people aren’t okay with this.
-16
u/nycbetches 2d ago edited 2d ago
Wasn’t UCLA where the counter-protestors attacked a pro-Palestinian protest and caused several of them to go to the hospital?
Would you support an investigation into the counter-protestors?
Edit: here is a NYT article about the violence started by the counterprotestors, citing to video footage. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/03/us/ucla-protests-encampment-violence.html?rsrc=flt&unlocked_article_code=1.mlA.ZvsY.iarxg407-PQQ&smid=url-share
Doesn’t the university have an obligation to protect all of its students, including from violence perpetrated by other students? Why was this attack allowed to go on for five hours?
39
u/justafutz 2d ago
It seems more than a little strange that we’re talking about how UCLA let students set up Jew free zones on campus for weeks, and your response is to say “well what about this incident where counter protestors got fed up and a clash broke out?” Whataboutism isn’t my favorite thing.
Yes, UCLA is where two sides of protestors got into a clash. The stories differ. What’s notable is that one side was enforcing a “Jew free zone” on campus, and the other was responding to that. Whoever was violent or started the violence should be investigated (and was). That has nothing to do with the fact that for weeks prior to that, the university turned a blind eye to an illegal encampment enforcing Jew free zones on campus. One of those is deliberate indifference, which is legally a civil rights violation by the university, while the other is just incompetence in a single incident.
In fact, if the university had cleared the encampment as required by law to protect the civil rights of its Jewish students, the clash wouldn’t have happened.
So in a way, thank you for bringing up yet another reason that UCLA’s failure to protect Jewish students spiraled into a clash that harmed even more people. Just more evidence of why it’s important to enforce rules to protect civil rights properly.
-5
u/nycbetches 2d ago
You should read the article I linked. The university had declared the encampment illegal and gave the protestors ~8 hours (overnight) to dismantle it. The counterprotestors attacked at the beginning of those 8 hours. The university police were standing by and, according to videos, did nothing to stop the attack. Why? I would think this would also be something the federal government would want to investigate.
Surely your argument isn’t that citizens are entitled to take the law into their own hands when campus officials have clearly set forth a path forward…
What’s notable is that one side was enforcing a “Jew free zone” on campus, and the other was responding to that.
The encampment they attacked wasn’t a “Jew-free zone,” in fact, there were Jewish protestors inside it, they had a seder…
You are conflating several different things. It is true that some people in the encampment refused to allow access through the encampment to people who were supportive of Israel (not just Jewish people). It is not true that the encampment was declared a “Jew-free zone” or that all of campus was a “Jew-free zone”. It’s important to stick to the facts in these discussions.
30
u/justafutz 2d ago
That’s one version of the story about a single clash. That’s disagreed with by other sources. I think this timeline is important. I trust the NYT as much as a wet mop, considering its brutally awful coverage of this issue. The timeline is helpful. For example, it lists out how in the days before the clash, the encampment had repeatedly harassed and violently attacked Jewish students and others. The day before the clash, a Jewish female was assaulted and left bleeding from her head and admitted to the ER. She was kicked and pulled by the hair by the encampment’s participants.
It lists how that the encampment was declared illegal, but not cleared, on May 1, before the clash, because of their continued attacks on students that even UCLA could no longer ignore after weeks of violence and harassment. The dispersal order came **after** the clash, not before. While the timeline ultimately agrees on who instigated that specific clash, that doesn’t change much when you look at the context and the fact that if UCLA had protected its Jewish students’ civil rights for weeks prior, there would never have been a clash at all.
But it’s weird to talk about the clash without mentioning that for weeks, Jewish students were excluded from campus based on their beliefs with the creation of a “Jew free zone” on campus. That’s not my view, it’s the view of a federal judge, and the view of UCLA, which admitted as much.
We’re not about to do tokenizing Jews to make the point somehow okay. The encampment and the students in it spent weeks blocking Jewish students and faculty from campus and from their classes. That’s a civil rights violation. Pointing to tokenization by those Jews who did denounce their faith to join is irrelevant. This is like saying that if an encampment targets and blocks Black students from class until they say “we support segregation”, it’s okay because a few fringe Black students have supported resegregation (which is, believe it or not, a real thing). It’s nonsense. Imagine setting up an encampment that forces visibly Muslim students to denounce Islam, or agree to globalize the murder of Muslims, and everyone says it’s okay because they had some token maybe-Muslims host Eid inside.
The normalization of antisemitism is bad.
You don’t get to exclude Jewish students for weeks from their campus unless they’re willing to denounce their faith. A federal judge made that clear and UCLA didn’t dispute that it was happening. I have no idea why you’re suggesting it would be okay. I haven’t said it’s okay to be a vigilante. You can actually read above where I said that violence should be investigated, and *was* investigated.
What is unusual is that I can say that, but you are excusing Jew free zones on UCLA’s campus by tokenization. Not good.
-2
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
22
u/justafutz 1d ago
But your timeline supports exactly what I just said.
It feels like you may not have read what I said. I think that seems somewhat clear as well from how little you responded to. For example, I said:
While the timeline ultimately agrees on who instigated that specific clash, that doesn’t change much when you look at the context and the fact that if UCLA had protected its Jewish students’ civil rights for weeks prior, there would never have been a clash at all.
But you didn't answer that, for some reason.
U.C.L.A. declared the encampment illegal and ordered students to disperse on the afternoon of April 30. The attack by the counterprotestors happened that night into the early hours of May 1. I don’t think that is disagreed with by any sources.
There are plenty of people who disagree with it and were there. But that's fine. It's not really relevant to the point. The point is that UCLA allowed weeks of an encampment excluding and assaulting Jewish students unless they denounced their faith, and you are bringing up a single clash after those events, and a day after a female student was kicked and assaulted and sent to the ER, as if that is somehow relevant.
I'm not okay with whataboutism to deflect from the denial of Jewish students' civil rights.
This is absolutely incorrect. From your own link
Warning them that they will face consequences is not a timed dispersal order. Read the link again:
Police in riot gear massed on the UCLA campus and ordered a large group of pro-Palestinian demonstrators inside a fortified encampment to leave the area or face arrest late Wednesday
That was the dispersal order, given on May 2. This is borne out by other sources. The declaration that it was unlawful did not force dispersal.
Is it your opinion that this justifies or excuses attacking the encampment and sending multiple students to the hospital? If that isn’t your opinion, why is it relevant?
Once again, it seems like you're not reading what I said. You're responding to virtually none of it, while also trying to change the subject to a Jew-free-zone-enforcing encampment getting into a clash on a thread about UCLA's deliberate indifference to antisemitism on campus.
As I said:
I haven’t said it’s okay to be a vigilante. You can actually read above where I said that violence should be investigated, and was investigated.
You seem to have missed this.
I find this so offensive that I can’t really respond to it while being moderate.
OK. I'm sorry you find facts offensive.
I will just say that I do not agree with you that Jewish people protesting for a free Palestine is “denouncing their faith.” And I do not agree that it is tokenization either. I’m guessing you’re 45+. I’m younger, and in my generation, many Jews do not identify as Zionists. Polling bears this out. I guess you think we’re all “tokens”?
We're not going to sit here and talk about "free Palestine" and ignore the way Jewish students on campus were treated. What you think my age is, is irrelevant. What Jews "identify" as, remains irrelevant as well.
It's important to first establish the facts. The encampment was very much a Jew-free zone, and pushed to establish Jew-free zones on campus. This is something a federal judge already established, and UCLA already admitted:
In the year 2024, in the United States of America, in the State of California, in the City of Los Angeles, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith.
This is something UCLA did not dispute.
Nor was this about "a free Palestine", unless you mean the chant "from the river to the sea," which is originally "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab". The destruction of Israel is an explicit goal, yes, as is the removal of Jewish rights to self-determination, and the Arabic chant is explicitly about ethnic cleansing.
Now, let's talk about the encampment itself. It was not ignorant of the history or goals. It was explicit. The report of the antisemitism task force established by UCLA makes this clear.
Jewish students wearing a kippah (yarmulke) or a Star of David were refused access. Others were forced to renounce their Zionism, which is a central tenet of Judaism, the actual faith, that most Jews consider integral to their faith as well (offshoots of religions exist, but that doesn't change the overall point that you can't exclude religious people because some offshoots exist). These protestors were excluding Jews, and tokenizing a handful to say "but they didn't exclude all Jews" is not relevant to that fact. If you started targeting Muslims who are wearing religious garb, you'd get into similar trouble. Or you should. But you seem to be arguing it's fine as long as you only target some.
If I were to block visibly Muslim students from their classes unless they agree that Muhammad appointed Ali ibn Abi Talib as his successor (i.e. if I exclude Sunni Muslims but allow in Shiite Muslims), it turns out I'm still creating a Muslim-free zone, and still denying people civil rights based on their religious beliefs. The same is true of Jews.
Now, let's not forget what the encampment said, either, since I mentioned the discussion about "free Palestine" and how you downplayed the antisemitism on full display from these students targeting Jews wearing religious items.
The graffiti from the encampment included phrases like "Fuck all Jews", "Israelis are native to Hell", and more. Jews said that they were repeatedly targeted on campus with the k-word, and statements like "Fuck you Jews, hope you fucking rot in hell where you all belong", which UCLA's administration ignored. A Native American Jewish woman with a sign reading "Hamas supporters are not welcome on native land" was assaulted by a mob while UCLA police stood by. Jewish students reported being approached by encampment members who told them they support Hamas, a genocidal terrorist group that wants Jews wiped off the planet. Calls for globalizing the intifada, i.e. calls for violence against Jews globally, were rampant.
Nor do I appreciate your attempt to assume my age and use it as some sort of argument. I'm not going to dox myself. What I will say is that the UCLA task force surveyed Jews on campus and found that most Jews say antisemitism is a problem on campus, and only 9% of Jews on campus felt no connection to Israel at all, 14.5% said a little connection, and over 75% said somewhat (18%) or very much connected (57.7%). Even polls that don't find high identification as "Zionist" because of the way that certain people have distorted the meaning of the term find that ~90% of Jews believe Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state (only 7% say no), and that number remains over 75% even for 18-34 year old Jews. So while they may not identify with the term that these encampment folks have used as a marker to assault them, the vast majority of Jews believe in the idea of Zionism, and excluding Jews from campus is creating a Jew-free zone.
But to get back to my point, if there are Jewish people in the encampment, by definition it cannot be a “Jew exclusion zone.” Hopefully we can agree on that
"If I allow a few Muslim tokens into my encampment who are willing to denounce their own faith, while excluding all other Muslim students from their classes and campus, it's not a Muslim-free zone" is not an argument I buy. I don't think anyone else does either. And a federal judge and UCLA have already ruled you are wrong.
10
u/persian_mamba 1d ago
Just want to say I'm reading every word you said so far and I appreciate you not getting dragged out of your main point
-6
u/nycbetches 1d ago
Officials at UCLA declared the pro-Palestinian encampment illegal for the first time on Tuesday [April 30] and warned protesters that they faced consequences if they did not leave.
warned protestors that they faced consequences if they did not leave.
if they did not leave.
That’s a dispersal order by any definition, lol, kind of weird to argue that it isn’t. They literally said “leave or there will be consequences.” And then they brought in the riot police after giving people some time to leave without facing immediate consequences. I don’t know how you can argue that the school wasn’t ordering the students to disperse. Not immediately, but within a short period of time.
Anyway, I will just say I disagree with you on multiple points and I haven’t seen you really engage with my points at all, so I think any further conversation at this point is counterproductive.
10
u/justafutz 1d ago
That’s a dispersal order by any definition, lol, kind of weird to argue that it isn’t. They literally said “leave or there will be consequences.” And then they brought in the riot police after giving people some time to leave without facing immediate consequences. I don’t know how you can argue that the school wasn’t ordering the students to disperse. Not immediately, but within a short period of time.
It's one thing to order dispersal by a particular time, it's another to declare something illegal and warn of consequences without ordering dispersal. I think that's pretty clear. The order to disperse was given after the clash. I've explained the distinction.
I haven’t seen you really engage with my points at all
The article we're talking about concerns allegations of UCLA's deliberate indifference and acquiescence to antisemitism on campus.
Your response was "But there was a clash where some of the encampment people excluding Jews from campus were allegedly attacked by counterprotestors, aren't you mad about that?"
I responded to each and every thing you said while pointing out the deflection. I not only engaged with your points, I took them on directly, provided sources, quoted each and every word you said, and directly responded to them. All while pointing out that this is a deflection from the main point, which is that for weeks UCLA allowed the encampment and its attendants to set up Jew-free zones on campus.
For you to now claim I haven't engaged with your points is appalling. I responded to each thing you said, and provided data (something you did not), while you insisted that I must be ignorant because I'm old (not something you knew or know).
I agree further conversation would be counterproductive. But that would be the case unless you begin addressing the subject and the arguments and data I provided. I think between the two of us, readers can see who was taking arguments head-on, and who was deflecting from the establishment of Jew-free zones on campus, the assaults on Jews, and the violation of Jewish students' civil rights to discuss one clash that took place on campus after-hours under disputed circumstances.
6
u/IllustriousHorsey 1d ago
Engaging with your points does not require agreement. He very thoroughly engaged with your points. It may not be pleasant to realize you’ve been proven wrong, but as the old phrase amongst from the cancellation era goes, it’s a learning moment.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 1d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
-5
u/Achrus 1d ago
Why is the DoJ suing over Title VI violations then?
4
u/justafutz 1d ago
The DOJ is suing over Title VI violations because UCLA was deliberately indifferent to antisemitism on campus that led to Jewish students being excluded from campus and campus services. That is a violation of Jewish students' civil rights, and is illegal for any entity (like UCLA) that receives taxpayer funding.
-1
u/Achrus 1d ago
Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith.
Title VI does not cover religion. Title VI instead prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. But not religion.
3
u/justafutz 1d ago
None of the laws that OCR enforces expressly address religious discrimination. However, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) protects students of any religion from discrimination, including harassment, based on a student’s actual or perceived:
* shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics, or
* citizenship or residency in a country with a dominant religion or distinct religious identity.
In practice, this covers religion. Which is why I mentioned it that way instead of getting sucked into the nuances. When it comes to Jews, this is a long established application of Title VI.
1
u/Achrus 1d ago
So they’re suing for Israel, not Judaism?
1
u/justafutz 1d ago
No. As I explained, religion (especially Judaism) is typically covered by Title VI because of the "shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics" provision.
There are multiple counts in the DOJ complaint. Part of it is discrimination against Israelis on the basis of national origin, which is explicitly protected by Title VI. The second part is:
Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, including discrimination against Jews or those perceived to be Jewish because of their ancestry.
As I said, Jews are covered by Title VI. So it's both that they're suing over.
40
u/capecodcaper Liberty Lover 2d ago
And yet all too often the very thin mask slips off and those claiming to be "anti zionists" slip up and say Jewish or start yelling about globalization of the infitada or from the river to the sea.
All of that is well ... anti-Semitic.
Palestinian supporters often handwave away the fact that extermination of the Jews is a core tenet of Hamas and leadership in Palestine.
-11
u/Toomster12489 1d ago
And yet all too often the mask slips and those elected Republicans claiming to be "protecting Americans from antisemitism" post a video of pro Israel protesters hollering monkey noises at a black woman for having the audacity to protest a genocide.
"Ole Miss taking care of business" - Rep Mike Collins (R - GA)
26
u/capecodcaper Liberty Lover 1d ago
There wasn't a single Israeli flag in that group
Yea guy was racist but I saw one guy doing it. Not an entire crowd.
This is a weak example and not at all comparable to yelling genocidal chants.
-15
u/awaythrowawaying 2d ago
Starter comment: The Department of Justice has initiated a federal lawsuit against UCLA, specifically accusing it of violating Title VI which prohibits discrimination on the basis of various categories to include race and national origin. The DOJ alleges that a pro-Palestine encampment that was built on university grounds quickly turned into a pro-Hamas venue and its participants actively harassed Jewish students, making them fear for their lives. The DOJ further charges that UCLA officials coordinated a very slow response to this incident despite being given multiple reports of what was going on, thereby tacitly endorsing or accepting discrimination against Israelis and Jews. UCLA has not immediately responded to this lawsuit.
The question of antisemitism on campus has been a prominent one in the political and public eye for many years, and especially so after the October 2023 attacks during which Hamas fighters murdered large numbers of Israeli civilians which led to the current conflict between Israel and Palestine. Progressive politicians have generally walked a fine line between not supporting Hamas openly while also directing most of their rhetoric against Israel for engaging in what they describe as illegal and genocidal acts against Palestinians. Many college campuses in the U.S. have been turned into political battlegrounds; another famous example is Columbia University.
Is the Department of Justice correct in saying that universities across the country have employed discriminatory behavior against Israelis and Jews due to ideological differences? Or is this simply a politically motivated attack against academia? If it is real, how can Title VI best be enforced in these cases?
9
u/Europa_Universheevs 2d ago
This is only happening because Trump doesn’t like UCLA. If he liked them or they pledged fealty to him, these charges would be dropped. Trump has shown time and again that his DoJ is for attacking his foes.
This reminds me of when a member of the only group of refugees group Trump thinks should be allowed in (white South Africans) had extremely virulent antisemitism on his social media. There was no vetting needed for these people beyond checking their skin color and no need to deport him for being antisemitic because, unlike in all other cases where the person alleged to be antisemitic, this guy is part of a group Trump likes.
3
u/PreparationPlenty943 1d ago
This. As much as I believe some institutions could be doing more to combat antisemitism, this move feels more motivated by the Trump administration having a gripe against progressives and finding an excuse to suppress them.
88
u/oath2order Maximum Malarkey 2d ago
Yeah okay.
We'll see what happens. It is okay to be pro-Palestine. It is not okay to be pro-Hamas. This seems like an easy case, but as we've seen with this DOJ's inability to indict a sub sandwich, I have the feeling it will be bungled.