{"id":256505,"date":"2026-04-07T23:04:06","date_gmt":"2026-04-07T23:04:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/256505\/"},"modified":"2026-04-07T23:04:06","modified_gmt":"2026-04-07T23:04:06","slug":"uc-berkeley-student-intervenors-object-to-brandeis-settlement-warn-it-could-erode-free-speech-on-campus-uc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/256505\/","title":{"rendered":"UC Berkeley student intervenors object to Brandeis settlement, warn it could erode free speech on campus | UC"},"content":{"rendered":"

Student intervenors filed yesterday to oppose the dismissal of the case between UC Berkeley and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. This is the latest conflict relating to the controversial lawsuit even though both parties have reached<\/a> a settlement agreement.<\/p>\n

In their filing, the intervenors\u2019 counsel objected to UC Berkeley\u2019s renewed commitment to continue considering the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, definition of antisemitism when investigating claims of discrimination or harassment against Jewish or Israeli individuals.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Consideration of the definition includes the contemporary examples provided by the IHRA, which advise that calling the state of Israel a \u201cracist endeavor\u201d can be antisemitic. The intervenors say this definition dangerously conflates anti-Zionist critique of Israel with antisemitism.\u00a0<\/p>\n

They further argue that the terms of the settlement would violate students\u2019 First Amendment rights to freedom of speech by engaging in viewpoint discrimination.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cAt UC-Berkeley under the Proposed Settlement, a student speech on Sproul Plaza defending acts by Israel found by the United Nations and numerous scholars to be war crimes is allowed, but a speech denouncing those same acts for resembling those committed by the Nazis is prohibited,\u201d wrote Shanta Driver, the intervenors\u2019 counsel.<\/p>\n

In its motion to dismiss the case, filed March 26, the Brandeis Center argued that student intervenors do not have the right to interfere with the settlement because none of its claims address the intervenors and because one of the remaining intervenors in the case \u201cappears\u201d to have graduated and the other graduates in May.<\/p>\n

District Judge James Donato previously granted<\/a> intervention in the case to six students because of their affiliation with organizations whose bylaws the Brandeis Center object to, or involvement in contested activities such as the 2024 pro-Palestine encampments<\/a>. Their entrance into the case relied on intervenors\u2019 status as students.\u00a0<\/p>\n

As students have graduated or been denied requests for anonymity, the original six intervenors have dropped to just two. According to the Brandeis Center, that leaves their standing to object \u201cdubious.\u201d<\/p>\n

Intervenors also filed a motion for the court to reconsider the standing of individuals who have lost, or been denied, status as intervenors and to prevent future disqualifications by graduation. Donato previously struck down a similar motion, calling it preemptive because the students had yet to graduate.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe arbitrary nature of whether one student is graduated should not determine whether students\u2019 free speech rights aren\u2019t protected,\u201d said Ronald Cruz, a United for Equality and Affirmative Action Legal Defense Fund lawyer who is representing intervenors, in an interview prior to the filing.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Paul Eckles, senior litigation counsel at the Brandeis Center, said he was \u201cextremely confident\u201d the settlement will be upheld despite intervenors\u2019 objections. \u201cThey can put whatever they want on a piece of paper, but they have no standing to object to the settlement,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

A hearing is scheduled for April 30 to discuss the dismissal of the case. Student intervenors have raised that a similar case against MIT was thrown out earlier this academic year and that Donato has previously expressed skepticism towards conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism. However, unless the court issues a ruling to the contrary, the terms of the settlement remain in effect.\u00a0<\/p>\n

A growing body of critics including various student groups and the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate have decried those terms as endangering students\u2019 free speech rights.<\/p>\n

In a statement, campus spokesperson Dan Mogulof said the settlement agreement does not represent a change in the status quo and that campus has considered the IHRA definition for the past five years, following longstanding guidance from the Department of Education. However, Mogulof said campus does not use particular definitions for investigations into any kind of harassment or discrimination.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat matters to OPHD is the extent to which any actions or expression targeting a protected identity violate the UC\u2019s antidiscrimination policy,\u201d Mogulof said in the statement.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Mogulof also pushed back against concerns that the settlement could restrict students\u2019 right to freedom of speech.<\/p>\n

\u201cNot a single clause in the settlement agreement has, or will be implemented in any way that has, a chilling or negative impact on students\u2019 First Amendment rights,\u201d Mogulof said in an email.<\/p>\n

While campus maintained the settlement\u2019s terms maintained the status quo, Eckles alleged there was evidence that campus was not already considering the IHRA definition of antisemitism.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cIt was not clear at all that they were already considering the definition, and, in fact, there\u2019s a lot of evidence that they were not,\u201d Eckles said. \u201cSo we think it\u2019s important that regardless of whether they were or they won\u2019t, that we get it in writing, in a binding agreement that they\u2019re going to consider it, that they\u2019re going to use it in their bias office.\u201d<\/p>\n

Regardless of whether the settlement maintains or changes the status quo, UC Berkeley\u2019s reassurances have so far done little to quiet a spree of conflicting interpretations of the settlement and its implications.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Academic Senate Divisional Council railed against the settlement in a statement last Thursday. The council also called on campus administration to refuse certain terms of the settlement, issue a public statement affirming the Academic Senate\u2019s authority and involve the senate in future deliberations around matters under Senate jurisdiction.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cIn a failure of shared governance, the Academic Senate was excluded from negotiations of the settlement, and was not even aware of these concessions until the settlement became public,\u201d the Academic Senate Divisional Council alleged in its statement. \u201cIn fact, no faculty member was consulted or involved in the negotiations, including those who make up the Chancellor\u2019s committee named in the settlement.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mogulof said UC Berkeley Chancellor Rich Lyons will be in communication with the senate and will convey that the settlement does not undermine the senate\u2019s authority over the curriculum and the role that the Academic Senate and senate faculty play in investigations into violations of the faculty code of conduct.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThis agreement is all about protecting Jewish students on campus,\u201d Eckles said. \u201cIf anyone thinks that this agreement is going to prevent them from doing something, that\u2019s a huge red flag for what they were planning to do because this agreement 100% does not chill or prevent anyone from exercising their First Amendment rights.\u201d<\/p>\n

Under the settlement agreement, campus must also publicly state that bans on Zionists have \u201chave historically been used \u2026 as a pretext for excluding Jews\u201d and could violate university rules.\u00a0<\/p>\n

UC Berkeley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky acknowledged in an interview that determining when speech becomes pretextual is difficult, but said it remains a factual consideration. If a group were to say it wants to exclude Zionists, but in practice it excluded all Jews, its speech would be pretextual for antisemitism, Chemerinsky said.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Eckles, Berkeley Law professor Steven Solomon and others have criticized Chemerinsky for his email sent to Berkeley Law students explaining that the settlement requires student groups to change their bylaws, but not to change their practice of refusing to invite Zionist speakers.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Eckles said the Brandeis Center will be addressing what they see as Chemerinsky\u2019s \u201cincomplete and inaccurate\u201d interpretation. As far back as 2022, prior to the filing of the suit against UC Berkeley, Brandeis Center head Kenneth Marcus had clashed with Chemerinsky over the alleged existence of \u201cJewish-free zones\u201d through bylaws now banned by the settlement. At the time, Chemerinsky denied<\/a> any such zones existed.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Chemerinsky maintained his interpretation. In an interview, he quoted the text of the settlement, which says it \u201cdoes not limit the discretion of RSOs to determine which speakers to invite.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mogulof said campus sees Chemerinsky\u2019s interpretation as consistent with the terms of the settlement.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Student intervenors filed yesterday to oppose the dismissal of the case between UC Berkeley and the Louis D.…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":256506,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[34],"tags":[3206,14760,75196,2584,113430,340,113432,113436,17162,143,145,144,40936,113435,52369,113434,113437,113431,26656,51361,113433,14764],"class_list":{"0":"post-256505","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-oakland","8":"tag-academic-senate","9":"tag-dan-mogulof","10":"tag-erwin-chemerinsky","11":"tag-first-amendment","12":"tag-international-holocaust-remembrance-alliance","13":"tag-israel","14":"tag-james-donato","15":"tag-kenneth-marcus","16":"tag-mit","17":"tag-oakland","18":"tag-oakland-headlines","19":"tag-oakland-news","20":"tag-ophd","21":"tag-paul-eckles","22":"tag-rich-lyons","23":"tag-ronald-cruz","24":"tag-rsos","25":"tag-shanta-driver","26":"tag-sproul-plaza","27":"tag-the-louis-d-brandeis-center-for-human-rights-under-law","28":"tag-united-for-equality-and-affirmative-action-legal-defense-fund","29":"tag-united-nations"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256505","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=256505"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256505\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/256506"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=256505"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=256505"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=256505"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}