US Justice Department sues UCLA alleging antisemitic educational environment

[u/awaythrowawaying]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-justice-department-sues-ucla-alleging-antisemitic-educational-environment-2026-05-26/

[u/oath2order]

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.

[u/lostroadrunner22 → u/oath2order]

I think having ‘Jewish Exclusion Zones’ is wrong. Call me crazy

[u/MinaZata → u/lostroadrunner22]

Reading into it, they NEVER called it that, they never stopped Jews specifically, they never engaged in anti-semiatic attacks, but asked people crossing the picket line to condemn Israel.

[u/justafutz → u/MinaZata]

You are wrong. That has already been debunked by a federal judge and admitted tacitly by UCLA, and by its task force on antisemitism.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-cd-cal/116482817.html

The judge’s opinion opens very clearly.

[u/lostroadrunner22 → u/MinaZata]

https://abc7.com/amp/post/ucla-pay-6-million-settle-complaints-antisemitic-discrimination-jewish-students/17352511/

UCLA had metal barriers and forced Jewish students and faculty away.

[u/justafutz → u/[deleted]]

UCLA said it didn’t do anything wrong because it claimed it had no control over the encampment (though a judge rejected that argument already).

But earlier in the case, as a federal judge explained, UCLA did not dispute (and thus already admitted) that Jews were excluded from campus based on their faith:

“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 fact is so unimaginable and so abhorrent to our constitutional guarantee of religious freedom that it bears repeating, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith. UCLA does not dispute this. Instead, UCLA claims that it has no responsibility to protect the religious freedom of its Jewish students because the exclusion was engineered by third-party protesters. But under constitutional principles, UCLA may not allow services to some students when UCLA knows that other students are excluded on religious grounds, regardless of who engineered the exclusion.”

They may have claimed innocence of legal liability. They did not deny that Jews were excluded from campus because of their faith.

[u/justafutz → u/[deleted]]

I guess it’s you versus a federal judge, the testimony of Jews on campus, the UCLA task force on antisemitism, the people I personally know who were denied access because of their Jewishness, and mountains of evidence.

It’s funny though that you think simply saying “it never happened” works. I guess you are pushing alternative facts. Not me.

[u/theKGS → u/justafutz]

The linked article claims the same thing as the person you are responding to..

"News reporting indicates that the encampment's entrances were guarded by protesters, and people who supported the existence of the state of Israel were kept out of the encampment."

"Plaintiffs are three Jewish students who assert they have a religious obligation to support the Jewish state of Israel."

[u/justafutz → u/theKGS]

So, again, Jews were excluded from campus because they believe in the religious Jewish tenet that Jews should have a homeland in Israel…the judge even explains this point and the denial of services to Jews in detail. The antisemitism task force at UCLA provides even more detail, pointing out that merely wearing a yarmulke or Star of David led to students being targeted.

Thank you for agreeing?

[u/theKGS → u/justafutz]

There is something weird about how reddit is showing me this thread so it's difficult for me to see the rest of the conversataion.

The person you are replying to is saying that jewish students were not blocked from campus.

I posted text from the article that seems to confirm that.

[u/justafutz → u/theKGS]

The person you are replying to is saying that jewish students were not blocked from campus.

I posted text from the article that seems to confirm that.

And as I pointed out, the "article" (which is actually a federal judge's opinion) makes clear that Jews were blocked from campus based on their beliefs. This is backed up by the UCLA antisemitism task force, which found the same thing.

[u/justafutz → u/[deleted]]

Let's compare what you aid with what the federal judge said at the link I provided.

You:

It says students were denied access to an encampment in an outdoor quad by a group of protestors if they did not denounce support for the state of Israel

The judge:

Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith

You:

What it does NOT say is that Jews were blocked from accessing any "services" by the school on account of their religious beliefs.

The judge:

Here, UCLA made available certain of its programs, activities, and campus areas when certain students, including Plaintiffs, were excluded because of their genuinely held religious beliefs.

Among other things, the encampment protestors prevented the Plaintiffs from accessing portions of campus (which are services), including accessing the services of the library ("Similarly, Plaintiff Ghayoum was unable to access Powell Library because he understood that traversing the encampment, which blocked entrance to the library, carried a risk of violence"), and they were denied access to the services of the student union ("He also canceled plans to meet a friend at Ackerman Union after four protesters stopped him while he walked toward Janss Steps and repeatedly asked him if he had a wristband").

So it's weird you would completely ignore that the link says you're wrong while insisting that you're repeating what is in the link. The same is backed up by the antisemitism task force, which found that:

By April 30, students wearing a Star of David or a kippah, or those refusing to denounce their Zionism (which for many Jews, but not all, is akin to renouncing their Jewish faith), were physically blocked by the protesters’ phalanxes from entering or passing through the occupied area of Royce Quad, entering Royce Hall, or entering Powell Library.

[u/justafutz → u/[deleted]]

The "faith" that the judge is talking about is actually support for Israel. That's what the actual complaint is about: "News reporting indicates that the encampment's entrances were guarded by protesters, and people who supported the existence of the state of Israel were kept out of the encampment."

It's support for the idea that Jews deserve the right to self-determination, a core tenet of Judaism.

Supporting the state of Israel and being Jewish are not equivalent, so Jewish students were not being excluded from the encampment on account of being Jewish.

I guess you are telling Jews what their faith is. That's weird.

Also, the claim that they could not access the library is largely false. The encampment blocked off the North side of the library, but the South side was open; furthermore, the university police offered to escort any students who did not feel safe through or around the encampment.

Oh, okay. So you are just going to go ahead and tell the federal judge and antisemitism task force at UCLA they were wrong. Nice alternative facts.

Also of note: nearly all of the claims made by the student are that he was afraid of possibly being stopped or harassed, not that he was actually stopped or harassed.

Multiple students reported being stopped and harassed. And there were three students, not one, which shows you did not read the full opinion from the judge.

It's appalling how much you're misstating it. Read it.

[u/knign → u/MinaZata]

asked people crossing the picket line to condemn Israel.

How is it any better?

[u/MinaZata → u/knign]

It isn't worse or better, but it isn't what the comment said it was. It is about true and false.

There's a massive difference between a Jewish Exclusion Zone and a picket line over a political issue.

[u/knign → u/MinaZata]

To me this seems like a distinction without a difference, but as long as we agree that it's not any better, ok.

[u/Caisers → u/knign]

Facts matter.

[u/knign → u/Caisers]

As I said above: I don't mind people's splitting the hair and try to never argue about definitions. To me, "condemn Israel to enter" is 100% a "Jewish Exclusion Zone", but the most important thing to agree that these are both equally unacceptable.

[u/Caisers → u/knign]

Do you believe all Jews supports Israel? That sounds like what you are saying and is blatantly antisemitic.

[u/knign → u/Caisers]

First, "support Israel" ≠ "refuse to 'condemn' Israel"

Second, vast majority of Jews do support Israel, regardless of their opinion about specific policies.

Third, it's immaterial. Some ethnic Jews don't even identify as Jews, other do identify as Jews but aren't considered "officially" Jewish, etc. People have ethnic identities, religious identities, cultural identities and political identities which often get intertwined in a complicated mesh. That's not the point.

Point, Israel as the Jewish state is inseparable from Jewish identity.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/knign]

vast majority of Jews do support Israel, regardless of their opinion about specific policies.

The discussion was about the latter.

63% pro-Israel. 23% pro-Israel and supportive of Israeli policies.

64% of Jewish Americans have a favorable view of Israel. 56% of Jewish Americans have little or no confidence in Benjamin Netanyahu.

[u/ModPolBot → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/sacredpredictions → u/knign]

How so? I’m a Jewish born us citizen and my family and I have never been to Israel, in fact a lot of friends of ours have also never been. I personally could care less about Israel. I condemn the governments actions all the time and would have been able to pass thru the picket line 

[u/knign → u/sacredpredictions]

And if this was a picket line “no Jews allowed”, you could still claim you’re not and walk through. So?

[u/20000RadsUnderTheSea → u/knign]

That’s true, a different situation from the one at hand in which people were excluded on the basis of their faith and which they would have to lie to get in would be different and bad, thank you.

I don’t know why you thought a good rebuttal to “the line was in reality permitting access on political belief and not religion” was “but what if they excluded on the basis of religion, hypothetically” when the law permits the first and doesn’t permit the second. Yeah dude, illegal things are illegal, but the point is that nothing illegal happened.

If the protestors refused to let people in unless they denounced Rhodesia, a white ethnostate instead a Jewish ethnostate, would you be claiming white people were prevented from entering?

[u/justafutz → u/20000RadsUnderTheSea]

That’s true, a different situation from the one at hand in which people were excluded on the basis of their faith and which they would have to lie to get in would be different and bad, thank you.

The encampment and co. explicitly targeted anyone wearing Jewish symbols. The fact that some Jews are willing to denounce their religious beliefs in order to get by doesn't make it less of a Jewish exclusion zone.

If the protestors refused to let people in unless they denounced Rhodesia, a white ethnostate instead a Jewish ethnostate, would you be claiming white people were prevented from entering?

If I targeted anyone wearing Muslim garb and insisted they denounce the Palestinian ethnostate that Palestinians, per polls, seek to establish (contrary to Israel, which is not an ethnostate and which is a multi-cultural democracy with 2 million Arab citizens), that would be just as bigoted. It would be just as wrong. I'm not sure why people are pushing so hard to excuse it when it's happening to Jews, especially not when the best response is "but some Jews are willing to denounce key portions of their faith!"

[u/20000RadsUnderTheSea → u/justafutz]

The denunciation of a state and its actions is not the denunciation of a religious belief. Conflating them is anti-semitic, Israel and its actions do not represent all jewish people, and associating them is causing a marked rise in anti-semitism. So no, it wasn't and isn't a jewish exclusion zone.

[u/justafutz → u/20000RadsUnderTheSea]

The denunciation of a state and its actions is not the denunciation of a religious belief. Conflating them is anti-semitic, Israel and its actions do not represent all jewish people, and associating them is causing a marked rise in anti-semitism. So no, it wasn't and isn't a jewish exclusion zone.

Excluding Jews unless they call to deny Jews the right to self-determination and agree with calls for violence against Jews and the expulsion of Jews from Israel, as happened on UCLA's campus, is antisemitism. It was absolutely a Jewish exclusion zone. A federal judge said so, and so did multiple students on campus who were excluded, and so did the UCLA Antisemitism Task Force. As the task force explained, any Jewish wearing visibly Jewish symbols like a kippah (yarmulke) or a Jewish star necklace was not allowed to attend their campus.

That's a Jewish exclusion zone.

Blaming Jews and the Jewish state for antisemitism is not only irrelevant, it shows a serious problem. No one here conflated Israel's actions with antisemitism. What they did is point out that Jews were excluded from campus because they are Jewish and believe in central tenets of the Jewish faith, and wore symbols that mark them as observant and proud Jews.

Excluding them for that is bigotry. It's a hate movement, full stop.

[u/knign → u/20000RadsUnderTheSea]

illegal things are illegal, but the point is that nothing illegal happened.

As a matter of fact, I believe a judge called this illegal. But this wasn't even my point.

Also, "ethnostate" is not a thing, and especially absurd when used with respect to Israel, one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world with full equality.

[u/20000RadsUnderTheSea → u/knign]

As a matter of fact, I believe a judge called this illegal.

Dang, seems like there should be some sort of court case you could point to where it was found illegal that you could point to, then. UCLA was not decided against and admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement, and agreed to a permanent court order forbidding it from excluding Jews from campus, which it already wasn't doing.

with full equality.

Barely de jure, not at all de facto. Their own reports have found as such, and anyone familiar with discrimination faced by Israeli Arabs could tell you as such. Even that report is biased against Israeli Arabs, blaming the rhetoric of Arab leaders while completely ignoring the rhetoric of Jewish Knesset leaders and other political figures.

Their defense minister's first date with his wife was to the grave of a mass murderer who killed 29 Palestinians and wounded over 100 more. A random selection of the Knesset would be more likely than not to find someone who has expressed anti-Arab sentiment in the past. "Death to Arabs" is a common chant as Israeli football games. It's ridiculous and disrespectful to the intelligence of the reader to claim that Israel is an equal society to Arabs. Your line read like North Korean-tier propaganda more than an actual assessment of reality.

[u/knign → u/20000RadsUnderTheSea]

You can find similar instances of discimination in every country.

[u/MinaZata → u/knign]

That's a big difference. Just actually think for a moment which is worst.

[u/ModPolBot → u/[deleted]]

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:

Law 1. Civil Discourse

~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.

Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

[u/jabberwockxeno → u/knign]

I'm Jewish and I find Israel's actions abhorrent, so clearly the distinction does exist.

[u/justafutz → u/jabberwockxeno]

Are you supportive of encampment protestors who target anyone wearing a kippah and say they cannot get by unless they express support for globalizing the intifada, destroying the world's only Jewish state, and taking off Jewish star necklaces?

Because that's what happened on UCLA's campus. I don't know you or have any way to know if you're Jewish, but if you are as you say, do you support that kind of action, or do you condemn it?

And can you understand why the 90%+ of Jews worldwide, with very few exceptions, would be appalled at that kind of behavior?

[u/justafutz → u/[deleted]]

Believing Jews have the right to self determination (Zionism) is not only an issue of rights for Jews (regardless of whether it’s a religious tenet), it is also something that the vast majority of Jews consider a fundamental tenet of Judaism. There are offshoots, as with any religion, but that doesn’t change the point about the vast, vast majority of Jews.

[u/justafutz → u/[deleted]]

Well, you’ve rewritten the definition of Zionism while accusing Jews of “colonizing” their historical homeland.

Zionism existed before the 19th century. It was not organized as a political movement until the 19th century. But it existed nevertheless.

It seems a little like you should read more about the origins and definition of Judaism and Zionism. I would suggest this guide. It’s very informative. It also details the issues you are wrong about.

[u/justafutz → u/[deleted]]

The guide literally agrees with my definition of Zionism... It defines it as the belief that the Jewish people are a nation and have the right to establish a state on their homeland (Israel.)

You may notice the difference between "colonizing" and the belief that Jews deserve the right to self-determination in their historical homeland.

I certainly do.

There was a long existing desire by many Jews to return to the land of Israel, but it didn't become a political movement to establish a state there until the 19th century.

The fact that Jews finally got organized in the 19th century doesn't change that it is a fundamental part of the Jewish faith and was before the 19th century.

Again, if you have read the guide, it's quite helpful:

Pivoting around this old-new homeland, Zionism is more than a political movement: it's a spiritual and ideological journey, rooted in Judaism, Jewish history, Jewish values, and the Jewish people. Especially since the Holocaust ended in 1945 and Israel emerged in 1948, Zionism is foundational to Jewish identity.

And:

Contrary to what many have tried to sell you – no, Judaism cannot be separated from Israel. Zionism is, "simply put, the manifestation of that belief."

Please don't skip over those portions of the guide. They're very informative.

[u/knign → u/[deleted]]

I have no idea how this debate is related to either, sorry.

[u/knign → u/[deleted]]

As I said above: a distinction without a difference.

Also, being Jewish is not a religion, and none of that has anything to do with Zionist movement.

[u/knign → u/[deleted]]

When this “political belief” is “condemn Israel”, for all practical purposes it’s not.