JAISAL NOOR: Welcome to The Real News Network.
I'm Jaisal Noor in Baltimore.
In April, five students from Florida Atlantic
University's Students for Justice in Palestine
chapter staged a protest and silent walkout
during a speaking event featuring an Israeli
soldier to highlight his involvement in Operation
Cast Lead, the weeks-long assault on the Gaza
Strip which resulted in the death of more
than 1,400 Palestinians, 13 Israelis, and
was condemned universally by human rights
groups.
The students were then investigated by the
school for their conduct.
And while none of them accepted the validity
of the charges brought against them, they
signed sanction agreements with the university
in order to avoid further punishment and are
required to take a diversity course sponsored
by the pro-Israeli Anti-Defamation League.
The students say their free speech rights
have been violated and are now speaking out.
Students and other groups were also shocked
at the university's decision to penalize such
a common form of protest.
Advocates say this is just one example of
the growing intimidation of Palestinian solidarity
activists happening at college campuses across
the country.
We're now joined by two guests to discuss
this growing controversy.
First is Nadine Aly.
She's a junior at FAU majoring in political
science and minoring in French.
She's a member of the National Society of
Collegiate Scholars and was one of the students
involved in the incident.
We're also joined by Liz Jackson.
She's cooperating counsel with the Center
for Constitutional Rights and a coordinator
of the Palestine Solidarity Legal Support
(PSLS) response to the repression of Palestinian
rights advocacy by providing legal and strategy
support to activists in the U.S.
Thank you both for joining us.
NADINE ALY: Thank you for having us.
LIZ JACKSON: Thanks for having us.
Happy to be here.
NOOR: So, Nadine, let's start with you.
Talk about this agreement you signed, why
you signed it, and more about this reeducation
program and the terms of the agreement.
ALY: Well, after a collective decision, the
five of us decided to sign these agreements.
Mainly we are focusing on our activism and
education.
We knew the university is intent on--like,
this whole investigative process was to impede
on our activism.
And so we decided to sign the agreement that
would--you know, we would avoid a extended
legal battle with the university as well as
a biased administrative hearing.
They said we had a choice whether we wanted
to sign the agreement or not.
But it wasn't really a choice, seeing as when
the new negotiations started, it was a take-it-or-leave
deal, stripping us of any type of leadership
position indefinitely throughout graduation,
as well as the diversity training course that
for some reason they feel that we need.
And that was mainly why we signed it, to avoid
further sanctions, which would probably have
been suspension and/or expulsion over a, you
know, less than two minute protest.
And basically that's--our reaction to that
was we made sure, like every other activist
around the nation, that our activism wasn't
going to be silenced and our voices weren't--like,
our rights to free speech weren't going to
be stifled.
So we're still hosting events and we're conducting
ourself as we always do.
NOOR: But the terms of the agreement do limit
some of your activities on campus.
Is that correct?
ALY: They limit my activities as an individual.
I cannot hold any leadership positions.
I was former president of SJP before I was
placed on probation.
But as of SJP itself, we still function as
a, you know, collective group.
We still host events and speakers.
NOOR: And this diversity program, it's sponsored
by the Anti-Defamation League, which is a
pro-Israeli organization which routinely condemns
people that oppose Israeli policy as anti-Semites.
What's your response to the fact that the
diversity training is being sponsored by the
ADL?
ALY: I think it's extremely offensive, the
fact that they proposed the diversity training
course in the first place.
And then, when we realized it was cosponsored
by the Anti-Defamation League, who actually
sent in or--you know, we had their current
regional associate director come to our campus
and pose as a graduate student studying sociology
but is actually interested in joining SJP.
So we've had them spy on us, you know, personally
as SJP FAU, as a group on campus.
And then, when we figured out this diversity
training course was cosponsored by the Anti-Defamation
League and they provide the promotional material
that is taught in this training course, it
was a shock to all of us and it was quite
insulting, to say the least.
NOOR: Liz, I want to turn to you.
I want to read you a statement by university
spokesperson Lisa Metcalf, which was given
to the website Inside Higher Ed.
They said, while they wouldn't comment on
specific cases, reports that any students
that have been disciplined for lawfully exercising
their rights to free speech and public demonstration
are incorrect and misleading.
That's Lisa Metcalf, a spokesperson for FAU.
Can you give us your response to that statement?
Is that correct?
JACKSON: Unfortunately, FAU is the one who
is misleading the public.
So it is true that they are not, under U.S.
law, at liberty to discuss all the details
of this investigation, but they're using that
as a veil to hide the central fact supporting
our arguments and our complaints, that they
are punishing these students in violation
of the First Amendment.
And that central fact is that this protest--.
So, first, to back up, their argument is that
they need to be worried about protecting the
First Amendment rights of the speaker.
So the Israeli soldier who was presenting
in this speaking event had a right to be heard,
and the students are--the university is justified
in disciplining the students, because they
infringed on the speaker, the Israeli soldier's
First Amendment rights.
That's essentially their argument.
So that hides--that completely distorts the
central fact of the protest, which is that
it lasted two minutes, tops (and that's being
generous), and that the event went on as planned
for, you know, an hour, hour and a half, and
the speaker was fully heard.
So the students' protest was nothing more
than a contribution, although a dissenting
contribution, to this event.
So, you know, the university is completely
distorting the nature of their protest.
And secondly, the university's arguing that
they have a right and even, you know, an obligation
to enforce or to impose reasonable restrictions
on speech and that this is one of those reasonable
regulations.
Now, it is true that under the First Amendment,
universities do, can, and should and often
do impose what's called time, place, and manner
regulations that restrict how and when and
where people can engage in expressive conduct
and speech and protest.
However, it is not true that that means they
can interpret that however they want.
And so, enforcing a policy against disruptions
or against, you know, very minimal forms of
dissent at a speaking event, enforcing their
policy to prohibit these kinds of simple disruptions,
that's an overly restrictive regulation.
And the Supreme Court has been very clear
on the law on this point, that an overly restrictive
time, place, and manner regulation is a violation
of the First Amendment.
And there's case law that specifically--that
addresses this question that, you know, what
is a disruption that's significant enough
that it can be prohibited.
And it has to be a material and substantial
disruption of the speaker in order for it
to be punishable.
And there's just no way that the students'
protest in this case could be considered a
material or a substantial disruption of the
event.
It was tops two minutes long.
So the university's statement that these reports
are incorrect and misleading--their statement
is in fact itself incorrect and misleading.
NOOR: So, Liz, your group, Palestine Solidarity
Legal Support, has documented almost 50 cases
of on-campus intimidation this year.
Can you talk about how this fits what's happening
at--what's happening in Florida fits into
a national context?
JACKSON: Sure.
Yeah.
What's happening at Florida is part of a escalating
national trend of repression campaigns designed
to target, silence, intimidate Students for
Justice in Palestine and other Palestinian
rights activists.
And these campaigns are being orchestrated
by outside organizations like the ADL, Stand
With Us, the [br{ndaI] Center, and they--just
to name a few.
There are others.
And they are targeting, pressuring universities
to crack down, discipline, restrict student
speech on this issue.
And really, clearly, you know, campuses, real
critical debate on campuses threaten these
types of Israel-aligned groups, because a
new generation of Americans are being really
educated about what's happening in Israel-Palestine.
So it is--you know, it's clearly very threatening
to them.
But their--you know, the response to the kind
of escalating student movement is escalating
legal repression.
So what we're seeing are, you know, different
tactics, but misuse of our nation's civil
rights laws.
We've been seeing some filing of Title VI
complaints with the Department of Education
alleging that pro-Palestinian activity on
campus creates an anti-Semitic, hostile environment
for Jewish students.
Those complaints are almost entirely based
on a completely bogus legal theory that criticism
of Israel is inherently anti-Semitic, and
often based on bogus facts as well.
We're also seeing, you know, really heavy
pressure campaigns against universities to
cancel events, like the Brooklyn College example,
where really heavy pressure was put--you know,
by New York City's politicians was put on
Brooklyn College to remove official political
science department sponsorship of an event
discussing boycott, divestment, and sanctions.
We're seeing heavy pressure by outside groups
to discipline, like in the FAU example, to
discipline students for really minor, you
know, sort of basic forms of protest that
we're all very used to happening on college
campuses.
So there's other similar examples.
In Northeastern, there's a student group there
facing very sort of similar discipline for
organizing a protest just like the FAU youth
students, a brief kind of dissenting voice
during an Israeli soldier's speaking event.
Their student group has been put on administrative
probation, and they're being required to write
a, quote, civility statement.
And that's one example.
Another example is this--at the Claremont
Colleges in Southern California, there was
a Palestinian student organizer of a mock
Israeli checkpoint who was called by a professor
during the checkpoint--a professor who was
offended by the protest called the student
a effing cockroach.
When the student filed a formal complaint
against the professor, it was dismissed.
And meanwhile the Claremont McKenna College
instead investigated the students for violating
the demonstrations policy.
NOOR: And, Liz, the same time you see this
growing trend of intimidation against Palestinian
solidarity groups, there hasn't been much
media coverage, even in the progressive media,
for example The Nation, ColorLines, Salon.com.
They haven't given this issue much attention.
Can you talk about the challenges you faced
raising awareness that this is happening and
it's growing across the country?
JACKSON: Well, so I think for the mainstream
media the reason why we're having trouble
getting coverage is clear.
There's, you know, heavy Zionist pressure,
and the kind of whole narrative around everything
related to Israel and Palestine has been shifted
so far to the right that this is, you know,
a sort of dangerous topic for papers to cover,
that they're going to get an onslaught of,
you know, organized op-ed campaigns screaming
at them if they cover this.
So that's sort of my theory about mainstream
media.
And then, you know, the progressive media,
I think a lot of it has to do with we are
just now getting up to speed really documenting
the escalating repression, and absolutely
this is, you know, the core free speech issue
of our time and one of the core racial justice
issues of our time.
And, you know, documenting it and connecting
the dots to describe the pattern is really
important.
And more progressive media are starting to
recognize that.
But it takes, you know, a lot of kind of outreach
to, you know, document and educate allies
about how serious the problem is.
And so we're really just getting started on
that now.
And I do think that there is also an intimidation
factor, even for progressive media.
NOOR: Okay.
Well I want to thank you both for joining
us, Liz Jackson and the Nadine Aly.
JACKSON: Thank you so much.
ALY: Thank you.
NOOR: Thank you for joining us on The Real
News Network.
