In a landmark decision, a federal district court in Los Angeles demanded that UCLA cease its tacit support of Antisemitic aggression on its campus. In the lawsuit Frankel v. Regents of the University of California, led by Becket and co-counsel Clement & Murphy PLLC, it was unveiled how UCLA facilitated a hostile environment for Jewish students. Activists, with the university’s collusion, effectively segregated Jews from vital campus facilities like classrooms and libraries through harassment and physical barriers.
The court’s ruling underscored a grotesque violation of constitutional rights under the guise of activism. “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 judge noted. UCLA’s argument? They bore no responsibility for the religious freedom of Jewish students since the exclusion was orchestrated by third-party protesters. This is an appalling stance from an institution that should champion academic freedom and diversity.
The judge rightly rejected UCLA’s defense, stating, “UCLA may not allow services to some students while knowing that other students are excluded on religious grounds, regardless of who engineered the exclusion.” This ruling is a clarion call for academic institutions: religious freedom and safe educational environments are non-negotiable.
The plaintiffs in this case, including Yitzchok Frankel, a law student and father who faced relentless Antisemitic harassment for merely wearing a kippah, exemplify the courage needed to confront institutional apathy towards religious discrimination. Frankel, like many others, was forced to alter his daily routines to avoid the so-called Jew Exclusion Zone, a stain on UCLA’s legacy.
Mark Rienzi, president of Becket and attorney for the students, hit the nail on the head: “Shame on UCLA for letting Antisemitic thugs terrorize Jews on campus,” he said. “Today’s ruling says that UCLA’s policy of helping Antisemitic activists target Jews is not just morally wrong but a gross constitutional violation.”
UCLA’s situation is a stark reminder of the skewed priorities prevalent in some of our higher education institutions. They seem ready to shell out more money for legal battles than to protect their students from the real threats posed by extremist ideologies masquerading as free speech. With the university poised to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, it’s disheartening yet revealing.
They apparently fail to recognize the wrongdoing here, which is a disturbing testament to where their loyalties lie—not with the safety and well-being of all students, but with defending problematic actions under the banner of academic freedom. This case should force a serious reconsideration of how universities address internal security and ideological extremism, emphasizing the need to protect their Jewish students, not just in word but in action.
