Three Jewish students at UCLA filed a federal lawsuit against the University of California’s Board of Trustees and several university officials on Wednesday, accusing anti-Israel protesters of blocking their access to key areas of campus.
In the 74-page document, the plaintiffs — two second-year law students and a second-year history major — described UCLA as a “hotbed of anti-Semitism,” as activists held up Signs with threatening messages chanted “Death to the Jews” and blocked traffic.
Lawyers for the students said pro-Palestinian protesters set up checkpoints at the Royce Plaza camp, allowing only those who denounced Israel to enter.
“With the knowledge and connivance of UCLA officials, activists effectively implemented ‘Jewish zones,’ isolating Jewish students and preventing them from accessing the heart of campus, including academic buildings and the main undergraduate library,” the lawsuit states. In many cases, activists erected barriers and linked arms to prevent those who refused to deny Israel from passing.”
The UC lawsuit comes about six weeks after demonstrators set up camp at UCLA demanding the university sever ties with Israel over the Gaza war.
Some Jewish students expressed frustration at the checkpoints, saying they were excluded from the camp simply because they supported Israel’s presence. Other students defended them, telling The Times they needed to stop “agitators” from entering and endangering protesters.
Lawyers for the three students said UCLA’s handling of the matter resulted in their clients being deprived of their rights to free speech, freedom of religion and equal access to educational facilities.
“If masked agitators exclude any other marginalized groups at UCLA, Governor Newsom should immediately send in the National Guard,” said Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of the nonprofit Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty. Mark Rienzi said the foundation provided partial legal representation in this case.
UCLA officials issued a statement saying they were aware of the lawsuit but had not yet been served.
“We will review and respond promptly,” the statement said. “UCLA remains committed to supporting the safety and well-being of the entire brown bear community.”
Yogita Goyal, a professor of English and African American studies at UCLA, dismissed the allegations in the lawsuit as “clearly false.”
“I have spent many days walking around the entire district and have never seen anyone excluded from a camp unless they had a clear intention to disrupt and harm the students inside,” she said in an email. “No students were prohibited from attending classes or entering the library. Campus security set up alternate routes.
Goyal, whose office is located near Royce Place, said protesters in the camp are “constantly threatened by outsiders and doubters.” Getting around the campground only takes an extra two to three minutes of walking, she said.
The lawsuit names several university officials as defendants, including UCLA Chancellor Gene Block, who was recently subpoenaed to testify before lawmakers about the demonstrations. Attorneys for the three students seized on some of Bullock’s statements, noting that he had publicly acknowledged that students were “physically blocked” from accessing parts of campus on their way to class.
On April 30, counter-demonstrators attacked the camp using fireworks and crude weapons, and law enforcement failed to intervene for hours. The next night, police dismantled the initial pro-Palestinian encampment and arrested more than 200 people.
The Los Angeles chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a civil rights and advocacy group, condemned the arrests, criticizing UCLA’s “militarized police response” to an “anti-genocide camp.” The group also condemned police for failing to protect protesters from violence.
In mid-May, a pro-Israel counter-demonstrator was arrested in connection with the attack.
Jewish students make up approximately 8% of UCLA’s undergraduate students. Goyal said that after the demonstrations, dozens of UCLA Jewish faculty signed an open letter seeking amnesty for arrested protesters and argued that criticism of Israel was not “presumed to be anti- Judaism”.
“While the signatories disagree deeply about the State of Israel, we agree that it is dangerous to view all criticism of the State or government of Israel, or of Zionism, as anti-Semitic,” the letter states. .
