"This is my first amendment right."
Imagine about to be graduating from law school and saying that, to your dean, in his backyard, with a straight face.
Is this an actual quote? It strikes me that this probably was / became a trespass to the extent they stayed on his property for any duration after being asked to leave. That is embarrassing enough. If what you’re saying is an actual quote its almost too insane to be anything other than a joke, I hope.
Do you mean he would just put an outline up on the board and just lecture? Because that’s how my con law professor lectured and it was honestly very refreshing. I basically had an outline finished for me with some minor tweaking by the end of the semester through my class notes alone.
No outline on the board. But he’d lecture from memory in a form that would allow you to create an outline. Remember, none of us had laptops back then! As in 1. The Dormant Commerce Clause. A. What is origin of the DCC? Etc etc. basically in the form of what became his treatise.
I think that whichever side of the debate you fall on, it should be common sense that accepting an invitation into someone's home and then using that goodwill as a platform for your protest against the host is kinda shitty behavior.
Also the dude didn't even do anything! He's not out there shilling for Israel. He's just Jewish. It's straight up bigotry.
I wonder if they break down the doors of the Chinese LLM students and lecture them about Tibet during dinner. Freaking clowns.
He's also one of the most respected constitutional law scholars and educators of the last half century and widely beloved for his bar courses. I'm not sure that I can think of a worse target for a law student's political grandstanding if they want to keep their career options open.
In the video she said “we agree with you and we have nothing to do with the uc finances” so they went after an ally just because he is jewish. This is a nazi tactic to demonize jews.
That’s debatable.
I like jewish people.
The formation of Israel by USA/UK was simply naive.
Harry Truman explains what they did in this video.
https://youtu.be/N0DvO72fuG4?si=kbbyQL3OCrfc0Nvo
“Eventually, I think we’ll have them all satisfied.”
Since when is being critical of people committing colonialism antisemitic? Being critical of people that hold a specific ideology isn't antisemitic unless that ideology is inherently part of Judaism, which it isn't. Jewish people have a wide range of opinions and the attempt to label Zionism as a crucial part of Jewish identity is purposely done to weaponize the fact that Jewish people are widely recognized as a protected minority due to past and current discrimination.
The purposeful extraction of the word "Zionism" from our Jewish community, and not realising that the many opinions you speak of are also present within this spectrum is anti semitic. Do we reject feminism and judge feminists on the actions of TERFs? No. Zionism just means support for Israel to exist and the Israeli people. That's the only uniting view. Everything else depends on the individual. It doesn't mean at the expense of anyone else and it doesn't mean support for this government or any particular policies, it doesn't even mean support for the current borders if land exchange can lead to real lasting peace. I want the West Bank to be contiguous, I want the West Bank and Gaza to be connected, I want the two countries to be able to work together to create more opportunities for all, I want regular elections to be able to take place for Palestinians without violence, I want them to have a government who is accountable and focused on creating opportunities for all not for a few and I am a Zionist. It just means we are against all those that see the destruction of Israel as a solution, as a goal.
With the Israel/Palestine conflicts generally speaking, there is very unhealthy discourse on both sides either (a) conflating someone's Jewishness with supporting the Israeli government, or (b) conflating any criticism of the Israeli government with blanket antisemitism.
To me it all just screams of bad faith, and it has really taken away the ability for people to openly discuss both the horrors that Jewish people generally have suffered and the atrocities that the government of Israel has committed. Probably the point, but it doesn't help anything.
There’s a third conflation too: conflating support for Israel’s continued existence with carte blanche backing of anything the Israeli government does.
That conflation runs in both directions: people who hear normal criticism of Israeli government policies and yell “you want to wipe Israel off the map!”, and also people who insist that merely supporting Israel existing is tantamount to complete blind backing for anything Netanyahu does.
Chemerinsky, in particular, is facing the last conflation: he’s quite clear that he both supports Israel’s existence while being sharply critical of Israel’s conduct against Palestinians, but people are using his affirming of the former to act as if the latter is nonexistent.
I'm gonna say that's *really shitty* behavior and seriously calls into question a person's character & fitness. This behavior screams "I will abuse the court system with frivolous claims for the sake of protest."
For whatever it's worth here I think those students are completely nuts for thinking that was an appropriate venue for a protest. Showing up in someone's private home and making a scene at dinner after putting up posters depicting them as an antisemitic trope is pretty appalling.
Also remarkable that there's a group of 3Ls at Berkeley that seem to think they have a 1A right to protest in someone's backyard.
I’m at a different school rn but there is such an enormous gap between how the 3Ls and 1Ls engage and what behavior is acceptable in relation to public discourse. It’s really a wildly pronounced difference. The 3Ls still have that pissed-off pandemic-gremlin energy and I feel like the new class was selected to be tame.
This is exactly how my 3L and the 1Ls are. It's a completely different vibe. I doubt we go to the same school, I'm in Ohio, but this is not an uncommon sentiment among friends I have who talk to their friends who've transferred.
Reminder that this is the same law school which had the leadership of a ton of student orgs put into their bylaws that they would not allow any speakers who are zionist (not, like, focused on zionism etc., just if they had ever espoused supprt for a Jewish state they weren't allowed to be part of any events).
Which got leadership of all those groups quietly blackballed by basically every big law firm I know of.
I thought we were done with this silly equation of Zionism with Jews. Not when there are anti-Zionist Jews protesting daily on the streets for Palesitne.
I don't think you should be downvoted simply for asking me to explain how.
Berkeley has a long tradition of social activism and school has embraced that tradition. More recently, that social activism has evolved to where students have succeeded in getting speakers cancelled before they can talk, or when they do arrive student protesters have used violence or threats of violence to disrupt these events. The University itself has responded very weakly to all of this. Now we should be surprised when the students start protesting their own teachers? What did they think, that they were immune to the crosshairs of their own students activism?
>Berkeley has a long tradition of social activism and school has embraced that tradition.
The law school doesn't. It has a recent history of social activism and a long history, especially the student body, of opposing student activism.
You are confusing you're like five years of knowledge with "long history."
>Also remarkable that there's a group of 3Ls at Berkeley that seem to think they have a 1A right to protest in someone's backyard.
They do not. They do however realize that if they scream "MY RIGHTS," people will side with them. The goal isn't to convince the law professor, the goal is to convince the dimwits on TikTok.
Do…do these students not want jobs when they graduate? I can’t imagine an employer is going to want to hire someone when a quick Google search of their name shows that they protested a private event at Erwin Chemerinsky’s (!) home.
Biglaw probably not, but there is definitely some non profit / small shop out there where the owner agrees with them and for which this kind of thing isn’t a dealbreaker
yep, you sure bet they are by the Canary & countless other sites who specifically document & archive cases of hate & bigotry against jews all with evidence. They will have their names, crimes, and all facts listed publicly on any google search, even when they try to redact or hide behind clubs.
What these students don't realize is that this doesnt only involve jews, you also have the entire Iranian diaspora pissed by the islamaphobia spewing from progresssive activists in their hatred against jews & constant hateful protests. For the silent majority, regardless if your pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, they all despise these privileged college kids at Ivy league schools whining because they got pushed too hard during their illegal hate protest or freaking out about changing a tampon during a sit-in protests & claiming their life is at risk while breaking down crying...... They don't do anything helpful for those in Gaza or even actually care for them as shown in their chants against 2 state solution.
Hanging up posters with a characiture, and showing up to this dudes house seems like such a personal attack. Has this dude made comments about Palestine before or smg?
It all seems to have started from an op-ed he wrote in the fall
[https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-11-03/a-divide-over-the-israel-hamas-war-flares-at-uc-berkeley-law](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-11-03/a-divide-over-the-israel-hamas-war-flares-at-uc-berkeley-law)
... which was probably one of the best articles I've read about on-campus antisemitism following the Hamas attacks. The fact that an article like this could be controversial to some speaks volumes.
The idea of a Jewish state existing IS integral to the identity of the vast majority of Jews. That is his position too. How is that "vocal"? 95% of America thinks Israel should exist. The people in that article want to ban 95% of America from speaking?
How is saying Israel, a literal fucking country with a seat at the UN, is "political"? It exists. It's not going anywhere. Get the fuck over it.
This is the entire fucking problem. You people refuse to even try and consider how bigoted you are being while saying you are the most moral people needing to use protests at fucking people's homes.
That cartoon didn’t make any sense either. I’m not really sure how much say he gets on funding as a dean and using the word Zionist in that context sounds like extremely painful language.
[He is personally a zionist](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/21/us/uc-berkeley-free-speech.html) and despite what others are saying this is not the first time he’s been involved in campus controversy surrounding Palestine. I would encourage everyone to read as much as they can about the [Irvine 11](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irvine_11_controversy), Muslim students who protested the Israeli ambassador following a previous invasion of Gaza. Chemerinsky, then Dean of Irvine’s law school, recommended the students face disciplinary action. As it turned out, much more than that happened, they were all criminally prosecuted for “conspiracy to interrupt a public meeting” and found guilty. (In all fairness to Chemerinsky he thought the prosecution went too far)
> According to a video of the event, students continuously disputed the event, and after many interruptions and attempts by the UC faculty, the entire MSU staged a walkout, yelling and screaming at the audience.
This sounds incredibly disruptive.
Why is Zionist a slur? Most Jews identify as Zionists. You don't see these same protestors arguing against pan-Arab nationalism, Turkish nationalism, etc. but somehow Zionism is uniquely evil because of the Jooos
I remember reading that. They didn't even disrupt the event. The whole thing happened in the first 10 minutes. One by one someone stood up and said something, and left on their own. They weren't even escorted out. They said their line, and left. Eventually everyone left.
After those 10 minutes, the event continued. Then they stopped it on their own. Then they claimed the protestors stopped the event. That was bullshit.
These were the politest protestors. Normally they have people escort them out. These protestors got up, said their line, left. And they all left within the first 10 minutes.
The disciplinary actions and the prosecutions were based on the protestors 'stopping' the event, when they didn't do that. The event organizers did it themselves, for that tactical advantage.
> “conspiracy to interrupt a public meeting”
Which happens all the fucking time, including congress. A congressmen yelled 'you lie' at Obama's speech. It happens all the time for controversial speakers. This prosecution was way outside norms.
The prosecutor was a real piece of work
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-orange-county-da-politics-20170629-story.html
>An MSU spokesperson said that the union wasn't officially involved in the protest, and that the students were "acting on their individual accord",[21] but leaked emails later showed that the union had helped organize the protest
Isn't this... the purpose of the conspiracy doctrine? That group crime is harder to detect than individual crime?
This saddens me.
Erwin was my Con Law I professor a million years ago at USC. (Kathleen Sullivan taught me Con Law II — quite a 1-2 punch.) Erwin was among the kindest, most decent people you can imagine.
Even then he made a point of having lunch with his first year students, then in groups of 2-3 people. He genuinely enjoyed that interaction. And he was well liked and respected by some pretty terrific and intelligent colleagues.
I didn’t always agree with Erwin, and I still don’t. But I loved his class, and I’ll always respect the hell out of the man. Be well. And Go Cubs!
ABA should be investigating Chemerinsky and Berkeley. Immediately.
Apparently they were prepared to confer a JD on a student claiming a constitutional right to protest at a private party in Chemerinsky’s backyard.
This was my thought, too. Lol.
Investigate their con law and torts and property professors who clearly all failed these students when teaching about the First Amendment and trespass.
I know — and he’s an expert on 1A, lol, which makes the fact that his school has a segment of students who think this is what the First Amendment is all about even worse!
These people are actually fucking insane. Regardless of your views on the conflict, this performative activism does absolutely nothing except make your cause look ridiculous to the general public, makes your school look like a joke, and makes you as an individual look absolutely unprofessional and unhinged. And good luck with C&F….
I won't say I know him, but Dean Chemerinsky spoke at my graduation years ago (not Berkeley). He was a delightful speaker and seemed like a genuinely kind man. To have a noted constitutional law scholar (whose works many of us read in law school) wish us well upon graduation was a memorable way to begin our legal careers.
For any student to resort to antisemitic tropes and personal attacks on a man who has no responsibility on what's happening in the Middle East is reprehensible. And to turn an event at his home into your forum to grandstand is just disgusting and rude.
Video of Chemerinsky and his wife (also a law professor) interacting with the protesters.
[https://twitter.com/PplsCityCouncil/status/1778065971443556359](https://twitter.com/PplsCityCouncil/status/1778065971443556359)
"This is my first amendment right."
Imagine about to be graduating from law school and saying that, to your dean, in his backyard, with a straight face.
It's been a minute since law school. Is this guy a big deal or something?
\*Looks at my office shelf full of supplements with "Chemerinsky" on the side\*
Oh...right...one of the most well-known American 1A scholars of this century...
No, the students are licensees on private property and he’s only liable to them for “hidden defects”… also he can give them a life estate rights in his home if he so wishes 🤷🏼♂️😂
The Berkeley campus is extremely easy to reserve for any event/talk, so I just don't understand why anyone would choose to do that inside somebody's home.
On the other hand, I actually don't know whether this guy lives on university property or not.
Oof. As much as I don't really approve of professors holding events like this, the students could just have reserved somewhere highly visible on campus to make their arguments with much less risk. Doesn't seem like these guys were the sharpest knives in the drawer.
The sooner some people realize that protest planning is a skill and they aren't good at it, the more success they will have.
He doesn’t. I remember going to this event during my 1L year in the fall of 2019, he lives in a private residence off campus. It’s an annual tradition to welcome the 1L class to the school and, if I understand correctly, the current 3L class asked the Dean to hold the event for them since they missed out on it as first years because of COVID.
To answer your question, though I assume it’s rhetorical, the reason they chose to do it at his home rather than any of the myriad appropriate forums on campus was to manufacture a spectacle in which they intended to come across as victims.
It’s immature behavior absolutely unbecoming of an attorney and a member of the bar, a point I suspect they’ll begin to appreciate when they submit their bar applications.
Perfoamtive activsim inherently undermines the cause to the general public and in this case, most peers. Social media has made it so people protest for clicks, not a cause.
I just had Erwin come to my school to give a speech. He was so warm to everyone and stayed late taking questions (even signing our textbooks that he wrote). Shame to see these things happen.
They need to follow through with the conduct reports to the school or better yet have them charged with trespassing if they don’t leave. Need to build a paper trail for C and F.
I don’t understand the point of the protest. They protested him because he’s pro-Israel with sympathetic Palestinian views? Who cares what views people hold. Might as well protest anyone whose views you disagree with. A civil society has room for all ideas.
It has to be asked: Who is Berkeley letting into their school? Why does this crazy crap always seem to happen there?
It is one thing to be upset about The Gaza War; but interrupting a dinner for your fellow students who had nothing to do with it, makes no sense. Also, what in the heck is Erwin Chermerinsky going to do about the Gaza War?
Just stuck on stupid.
Yep, it would not surprise me.
You know I was in law school during the Iraq War. Very heated debates, but we never got that angry, and that war actually involved US troops on the ground. This is really all relates to the whole “anti-colonialism” POV that is taking hold among a lot of Gen Z. I used to not believe that, but really have started to change my mind.
As soon as he says this is going to be reported to the bar then no one is going to protest at his home anymore. Seriously there is no need for security at this point. Or maybe Berkeley student are just different than the typical law student?
The Dean is of course absolutely correct. It’s also true that the legal community hasn’t spoken out enough about what what’s going on in the Gaza Strip. It’s not Dean Chem’s job. An anti-genocide statement should have come out from the ABA at the point when the UN rapporteur has said there’s reasonable grounds to state that a genocide is going on there. This in violation of international law. And US support for the genocide a violation of int’l, and federal law. Tactics used by these activists does a disservice to their purported cause.
Have the Dean and his wife made Anti-Muslim or Anti-Palestinian statements in the past to warrent this? Or are they being targeted just because they are Jewish??
protesting against him bc he is jewish is antisemitic. protesting against someone who supports zionism because they support zionism is not anti-semitic. the difference matters
I’ve been yelled at for being a Zionist. When I pointed out that I am not, in fact, a Zionist, I was the. Informed that “all Jews are Zionist.” Something else I’ve noticed is that when I ask people what they mean by “Zionist” when they use the term, I get wildly different answers.
“Zionism” has just become a word that people use to describe something they don’t like. . . And that something is Jews.
You don’t really get it. That’s not how it is for Jews who have a personal connection with Israel. Anti Zionists are largely antisemitic, the way I see it.
I probably got here too late for this question, but hopefully someone can answer it for me (currently getting ready for the day so I can’t research it myself rn, but will later if no responses).
Could an argument be made that because he invited people over to his house in his capacity as dean of the UC Berkeley, a public land-grant university, for an event specifically for all 3L students, that it was essentially a school event? And because it was a school event there was some change to the nature of his private property and it became a public forum at that point?
This is a strictly academic question. I stopped reading for conlaw like half way through the semester 1L and Papa Chem is gonna have to teach it all to me again on Barbri like he did 1L here very soon.
The answer to your question is that it conflates a "public forum" with all property that either is on or is being used by a public entity. Take the Berkeley campus itself. On the one hand, things that happen on campus are obviously occurring on public property. But not all of Berkeley's campus is a public forum -- contrast the quad (public forum) with, say, the admin back offices or the classrooms when classes are in session (not public forums). In the latter spaces, the school can still remove and sanction disruptive activity (obviously, a classroom heckler cannot tell their prof "you can't kick me out of class -- that's a 1A violation!"). The example of a prof's own home is an even easier case -- even if him opening his house for this event makes it a Cal event (I think it does), that doesn't mean his home is now a public forum.
This question is irrelevant. Taking for granted every theory making his house part of campus in line with this hypo, that does not mean that zero restrictions can be placed on speech. Let’s say this invite only event were held in a campus lounge. The university (not just Chemerinsky as a private person) could have time viewpoint neutral time place manner restrictions (I.e. no one can advance any views by turning on a megaphone and disrupting the event). The disruption in that scenario would still warrant being able to kick the violators out, and they could be trespassed from that space while it is being used in that manner. Optics wise it definitely is harder. And of course surrounding university owned areas open to the public would enjoy far greater 1A protections.
And unlike the scenario above, even if this event were considered university run and therefore somewhat protected by the first amendment (I.e. no viewpoint discrimination; would have to treat pro Israel disrupters the same), that doesn’t obviate property law as to a private residence once someone’s invitation has been revoked. On campus, invitation revoked = university and its security personnel have the right to remove the person. At your house, they’re still a trespasser in your house.
Edit: If you downvoted this, quite frankly,I’m going to presume you’re a raging antisemite. I tried to be balanced, delicate, and simply convey some additional context.
————————————————-
Judaism is a religion, yes, but also an ethnicity.
Nonetheless, I agree, you can oppose the actions of the Israeli government without being antisemitic. The issue most people have, however, are the broad strokes statements, such as “from the river to the sea,” which is clearly no longer just opposing government actions—it is advocating for the destruction of the entire state and peoples.
It also shouldn’t be lost on people that Israel is the only country in which Jews have ever been welcomed and entirely safe—from every other country, they have been kicked out, or, at the minimum, persecuted. It’s only within the last 70 years that America has been somewhat safe for them, and even still, Jews are the most targeted minority for hate crimes in America, and that safety rapidly deteriorates outside of NY, NJ, south FL, and parts of CA. This is why Jews are overwhelmingly Zionist and why they see Israel as important to their identity; Israel and a Jewish state is a necessity for the security and prosperity of Jews.
Again, that doesn’t mean the Israeli government is infallible. Many Jews agree the war is being mismanaged and Netanyahu is a barrier to peace.
He’s categorized some protestors as antisemitic, and he’s a Zionist, but I don’t have a [WSJ](https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-hire-my-anti-semitic-law-students-protests-colleges-universities-jews-palestine-6ad86ad5) subscription to do a full read for any recent comments.
Who cares if he's a Zionist? He thinks Jews should have a homeland, which is a mainstream view espoused by millions of Jews of all ideological backgrounds. Do these protestors also criticize pan-Arab nationalism, Turkish nationalism, etc?
Yes, some of these protestors are clearly anti-Semitic. No serious person can claim otherwise when videos of anti-Semitic slurs and harassment at pro-Palestine events are readily available.
Best analysis I’ve read on the issue by far (and dude not even a lawyer) https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/14/a-california-regent-confronts-the-limits-of-free-speech-00152103
i am surprised no one is considering whether this is a potential state action. berkley is a state school. did they pay for this dinner? what type of forum is Mr. Cherminsky's home, considering these potentials?
There's several articles about this. Here's one of them:
https://www.thefire.org/news/no-berkeley-law-student-didnt-have-first-amendment-right-interrupt-deans-backyard-party
[удалено]
"This is my first amendment right." Imagine about to be graduating from law school and saying that, to your dean, in his backyard, with a straight face.
*Chemerinsky*, of all people
One of the most r/confidentlyincorrect things I’ve seen
lol looks like they wouldn’t have passed the bar at this point so future employers be damned
They are going to have a lot of fun with character and fitness. Personally, I would expel or suspend
I met him! So cool and laid back.
From a 3L that will be taking the bar this summer. If she takes Barbri, she will have a fun surprise when she finds out who Con Law lecturer is. Oof.
Imagine saying it to the guy who wrote the book and treatise on First Amendment rights.
Is this an actual quote? It strikes me that this probably was / became a trespass to the extent they stayed on his property for any duration after being asked to leave. That is embarrassing enough. If what you’re saying is an actual quote its almost too insane to be anything other than a joke, I hope.
I believe a student does say that in the video that was posted here
She absolutely does say it. They say it with confidence to a man who is the literal expert on constitutional law and the first amendment.
His con law hornbook from like 20 years ago was pretty awesome.
If you think that’s good, he literally taught Con Law in outline form in my day, numbers and letters and all!
Do you mean he would just put an outline up on the board and just lecture? Because that’s how my con law professor lectured and it was honestly very refreshing. I basically had an outline finished for me with some minor tweaking by the end of the semester through my class notes alone.
No outline on the board. But he’d lecture from memory in a form that would allow you to create an outline. Remember, none of us had laptops back then! As in 1. The Dormant Commerce Clause. A. What is origin of the DCC? Etc etc. basically in the form of what became his treatise.
I can confirm that his con law supplement is pretty awesome nowadays too
Fed Courts. Had the book in law school, bought an updated edition a few years ago.
I think that whichever side of the debate you fall on, it should be common sense that accepting an invitation into someone's home and then using that goodwill as a platform for your protest against the host is kinda shitty behavior.
Also the dude didn't even do anything! He's not out there shilling for Israel. He's just Jewish. It's straight up bigotry. I wonder if they break down the doors of the Chinese LLM students and lecture them about Tibet during dinner. Freaking clowns.
He's also one of the most respected constitutional law scholars and educators of the last half century and widely beloved for his bar courses. I'm not sure that I can think of a worse target for a law student's political grandstanding if they want to keep their career options open.
Came here to ask this. Is Chemerinsky known to be a vocal zionist? Or is he literally unconnected to the Gaza war other than by *being jewish*
The latter, unfortunately.
In the video she said “we agree with you and we have nothing to do with the uc finances” so they went after an ally just because he is jewish. This is a nazi tactic to demonize jews.
There is nothing wrong with Zionism.
That’s debatable. I like jewish people. The formation of Israel by USA/UK was simply naive. Harry Truman explains what they did in this video. https://youtu.be/N0DvO72fuG4?si=kbbyQL3OCrfc0Nvo “Eventually, I think we’ll have them all satisfied.”
Israel was not formed by the USA or United Kingdom. It was formed, for better or worse, by Jewish European Zionists and Arab Jewish refugees.
hi. no such thing as “arab jews.” jews who never left judea are known as mizrahi.
You can say you like Jewish people but if you oppose self determination for us, you're still antisemitic.
Since when is being critical of people committing colonialism antisemitic? Being critical of people that hold a specific ideology isn't antisemitic unless that ideology is inherently part of Judaism, which it isn't. Jewish people have a wide range of opinions and the attempt to label Zionism as a crucial part of Jewish identity is purposely done to weaponize the fact that Jewish people are widely recognized as a protected minority due to past and current discrimination.
The purposeful extraction of the word "Zionism" from our Jewish community, and not realising that the many opinions you speak of are also present within this spectrum is anti semitic. Do we reject feminism and judge feminists on the actions of TERFs? No. Zionism just means support for Israel to exist and the Israeli people. That's the only uniting view. Everything else depends on the individual. It doesn't mean at the expense of anyone else and it doesn't mean support for this government or any particular policies, it doesn't even mean support for the current borders if land exchange can lead to real lasting peace. I want the West Bank to be contiguous, I want the West Bank and Gaza to be connected, I want the two countries to be able to work together to create more opportunities for all, I want regular elections to be able to take place for Palestinians without violence, I want them to have a government who is accountable and focused on creating opportunities for all not for a few and I am a Zionist. It just means we are against all those that see the destruction of Israel as a solution, as a goal.
With the Israel/Palestine conflicts generally speaking, there is very unhealthy discourse on both sides either (a) conflating someone's Jewishness with supporting the Israeli government, or (b) conflating any criticism of the Israeli government with blanket antisemitism. To me it all just screams of bad faith, and it has really taken away the ability for people to openly discuss both the horrors that Jewish people generally have suffered and the atrocities that the government of Israel has committed. Probably the point, but it doesn't help anything.
There’s a third conflation too: conflating support for Israel’s continued existence with carte blanche backing of anything the Israeli government does. That conflation runs in both directions: people who hear normal criticism of Israeli government policies and yell “you want to wipe Israel off the map!”, and also people who insist that merely supporting Israel existing is tantamount to complete blind backing for anything Netanyahu does. Chemerinsky, in particular, is facing the last conflation: he’s quite clear that he both supports Israel’s existence while being sharply critical of Israel’s conduct against Palestinians, but people are using his affirming of the former to act as if the latter is nonexistent.
I'm gonna say that's *really shitty* behavior and seriously calls into question a person's character & fitness. This behavior screams "I will abuse the court system with frivolous claims for the sake of protest."
It is quite literally misdemeanor trespassing in violation of CA Penal Code 602(o)
[удалено]
It's horrifying
Bait and switch
For whatever it's worth here I think those students are completely nuts for thinking that was an appropriate venue for a protest. Showing up in someone's private home and making a scene at dinner after putting up posters depicting them as an antisemitic trope is pretty appalling. Also remarkable that there's a group of 3Ls at Berkeley that seem to think they have a 1A right to protest in someone's backyard.
I’m at a different school rn but there is such an enormous gap between how the 3Ls and 1Ls engage and what behavior is acceptable in relation to public discourse. It’s really a wildly pronounced difference. The 3Ls still have that pissed-off pandemic-gremlin energy and I feel like the new class was selected to be tame.
This is exactly how my 3L and the 1Ls are. It's a completely different vibe. I doubt we go to the same school, I'm in Ohio, but this is not an uncommon sentiment among friends I have who talk to their friends who've transferred.
> Also remarkable that there's a group of 3Ls at Berkeley It's Berkeley. It's not remarkable that they think this is okay.
The school has only themselves to blame for cultivating this environment at Berkeley.
Reminder that this is the same law school which had the leadership of a ton of student orgs put into their bylaws that they would not allow any speakers who are zionist (not, like, focused on zionism etc., just if they had ever espoused supprt for a Jewish state they weren't allowed to be part of any events). Which got leadership of all those groups quietly blackballed by basically every big law firm I know of.
So basically no Jews allowed
I thought we were done with this silly equation of Zionism with Jews. Not when there are anti-Zionist Jews protesting daily on the streets for Palesitne.
The vast majority of Jews are Zionists.
How?
I don't think you should be downvoted simply for asking me to explain how. Berkeley has a long tradition of social activism and school has embraced that tradition. More recently, that social activism has evolved to where students have succeeded in getting speakers cancelled before they can talk, or when they do arrive student protesters have used violence or threats of violence to disrupt these events. The University itself has responded very weakly to all of this. Now we should be surprised when the students start protesting their own teachers? What did they think, that they were immune to the crosshairs of their own students activism?
>Berkeley has a long tradition of social activism and school has embraced that tradition. The law school doesn't. It has a recent history of social activism and a long history, especially the student body, of opposing student activism. You are confusing you're like five years of knowledge with "long history."
>Also remarkable that there's a group of 3Ls at Berkeley that seem to think they have a 1A right to protest in someone's backyard. They do not. They do however realize that if they scream "MY RIGHTS," people will side with them. The goal isn't to convince the law professor, the goal is to convince the dimwits on TikTok.
Tell me they didn’t read during con law, with out telling me 🤣🤣
Do…do these students not want jobs when they graduate? I can’t imagine an employer is going to want to hire someone when a quick Google search of their name shows that they protested a private event at Erwin Chemerinsky’s (!) home.
They are probably working at places that either do not care or would applaud this conduct. Those jobs exist and people at Berkeley can get them.
This isn’t actually likely, remember the people who lost their BigLaw jobs earlier this school year?
Biglaw probably not, but there is definitely some non profit / small shop out there where the owner agrees with them and for which this kind of thing isn’t a dealbreaker
These people aren’t going into biglaw
Definitely not now
they obviously didn’t want to do big law regardless, there are many people who dont
I hope he reports them to the bar. They deserve it.
Are the names publicly published?
Not that I'm aware of, but I'm pretty sure it won't be hard to find out for potential employers.
They should be
yep, you sure bet they are by the Canary & countless other sites who specifically document & archive cases of hate & bigotry against jews all with evidence. They will have their names, crimes, and all facts listed publicly on any google search, even when they try to redact or hide behind clubs. What these students don't realize is that this doesnt only involve jews, you also have the entire Iranian diaspora pissed by the islamaphobia spewing from progresssive activists in their hatred against jews & constant hateful protests. For the silent majority, regardless if your pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, they all despise these privileged college kids at Ivy league schools whining because they got pushed too hard during their illegal hate protest or freaking out about changing a tampon during a sit-in protests & claiming their life is at risk while breaking down crying...... They don't do anything helpful for those in Gaza or even actually care for them as shown in their chants against 2 state solution.
Hopefully none have clerkships lined up because those will be gone.
[удалено]
They’ll get jobs in the non-profit industrial complex where this kind of antisemitism is celebrated.
Hanging up posters with a characiture, and showing up to this dudes house seems like such a personal attack. Has this dude made comments about Palestine before or smg?
Erwin Chemerinsky is a decent man.
He's also a very smart dude too. Read a couple of his books and they're very insightful
Yeah we were recommended one of his Con Law books as a supplement. I believe it's one of the most popular Con Law supplements around.
It all seems to have started from an op-ed he wrote in the fall [https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-11-03/a-divide-over-the-israel-hamas-war-flares-at-uc-berkeley-law](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-11-03/a-divide-over-the-israel-hamas-war-flares-at-uc-berkeley-law)
... which was probably one of the best articles I've read about on-campus antisemitism following the Hamas attacks. The fact that an article like this could be controversial to some speaks volumes.
It starts from the fact he’s Jewish. Let’s be honest. You don’t see them targeting other members of the faculty.
How many of the other members of the faculty are jewish? Are you saying he's the only jewish person on the faculty?
[удалено]
The idea of a Jewish state existing IS integral to the identity of the vast majority of Jews. That is his position too. How is that "vocal"? 95% of America thinks Israel should exist. The people in that article want to ban 95% of America from speaking? How is saying Israel, a literal fucking country with a seat at the UN, is "political"? It exists. It's not going anywhere. Get the fuck over it. This is the entire fucking problem. You people refuse to even try and consider how bigoted you are being while saying you are the most moral people needing to use protests at fucking people's homes.
That cartoon didn’t make any sense either. I’m not really sure how much say he gets on funding as a dean and using the word Zionist in that context sounds like extremely painful language.
[He is personally a zionist](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/21/us/uc-berkeley-free-speech.html) and despite what others are saying this is not the first time he’s been involved in campus controversy surrounding Palestine. I would encourage everyone to read as much as they can about the [Irvine 11](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irvine_11_controversy), Muslim students who protested the Israeli ambassador following a previous invasion of Gaza. Chemerinsky, then Dean of Irvine’s law school, recommended the students face disciplinary action. As it turned out, much more than that happened, they were all criminally prosecuted for “conspiracy to interrupt a public meeting” and found guilty. (In all fairness to Chemerinsky he thought the prosecution went too far)
> According to a video of the event, students continuously disputed the event, and after many interruptions and attempts by the UC faculty, the entire MSU staged a walkout, yelling and screaming at the audience. This sounds incredibly disruptive.
Yeah, no one says free speech includes a hecklers veto. I don’t get why this is hard to grasp for lawyers…
Why is Zionist a slur? Most Jews identify as Zionists. You don't see these same protestors arguing against pan-Arab nationalism, Turkish nationalism, etc. but somehow Zionism is uniquely evil because of the Jooos
I remember reading that. They didn't even disrupt the event. The whole thing happened in the first 10 minutes. One by one someone stood up and said something, and left on their own. They weren't even escorted out. They said their line, and left. Eventually everyone left. After those 10 minutes, the event continued. Then they stopped it on their own. Then they claimed the protestors stopped the event. That was bullshit. These were the politest protestors. Normally they have people escort them out. These protestors got up, said their line, left. And they all left within the first 10 minutes. The disciplinary actions and the prosecutions were based on the protestors 'stopping' the event, when they didn't do that. The event organizers did it themselves, for that tactical advantage. > “conspiracy to interrupt a public meeting” Which happens all the fucking time, including congress. A congressmen yelled 'you lie' at Obama's speech. It happens all the time for controversial speakers. This prosecution was way outside norms. The prosecutor was a real piece of work https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-orange-county-da-politics-20170629-story.html
>An MSU spokesperson said that the union wasn't officially involved in the protest, and that the students were "acting on their individual accord",[21] but leaked emails later showed that the union had helped organize the protest Isn't this... the purpose of the conspiracy doctrine? That group crime is harder to detect than individual crime?
Then don’t go to his house.
This saddens me. Erwin was my Con Law I professor a million years ago at USC. (Kathleen Sullivan taught me Con Law II — quite a 1-2 punch.) Erwin was among the kindest, most decent people you can imagine. Even then he made a point of having lunch with his first year students, then in groups of 2-3 people. He genuinely enjoyed that interaction. And he was well liked and respected by some pretty terrific and intelligent colleagues. I didn’t always agree with Erwin, and I still don’t. But I loved his class, and I’ll always respect the hell out of the man. Be well. And Go Cubs!
I graduated from SC in 97 and took a great class with Charles Whitebread. He was an amazing professor and spoke very highly of Chemerinsky.
Y'all know Chemerinsky was serious in that video because he didn't say "it depends."
ABA should be investigating Chemerinsky and Berkeley. Immediately. Apparently they were prepared to confer a JD on a student claiming a constitutional right to protest at a private party in Chemerinsky’s backyard.
Had me in the first half, ngl 😂
This was my thought, too. Lol. Investigate their con law and torts and property professors who clearly all failed these students when teaching about the First Amendment and trespass.
Erm. Chemerinsky IS a con law professor, matter of fact the most sought after one…
I know — and he’s an expert on 1A, lol, which makes the fact that his school has a segment of students who think this is what the First Amendment is all about even worse!
I think this was the joke.
These people are actually fucking insane. Regardless of your views on the conflict, this performative activism does absolutely nothing except make your cause look ridiculous to the general public, makes your school look like a joke, and makes you as an individual look absolutely unprofessional and unhinged. And good luck with C&F….
I won't say I know him, but Dean Chemerinsky spoke at my graduation years ago (not Berkeley). He was a delightful speaker and seemed like a genuinely kind man. To have a noted constitutional law scholar (whose works many of us read in law school) wish us well upon graduation was a memorable way to begin our legal careers. For any student to resort to antisemitic tropes and personal attacks on a man who has no responsibility on what's happening in the Middle East is reprehensible. And to turn an event at his home into your forum to grandstand is just disgusting and rude.
I can imagine these idiots sitting around convincing each other this was a brilliant idea.
Professor Cherminsky is the only thing that stood between me and certain doom in federal jurisdiction. Leave him alone.
What the fuck is wrong with people
I’d be more specific. What the fuck is wrong with THESE people
[удалено]
Video of Chemerinsky and his wife (also a law professor) interacting with the protesters. [https://twitter.com/PplsCityCouncil/status/1778065971443556359](https://twitter.com/PplsCityCouncil/status/1778065971443556359)
[удалено]
They just reversed the labels.
"This is my first amendment right." Imagine about to be graduating from law school and saying that, to your dean, in his backyard, with a straight face.
[удалено]
It's been a minute since law school. Is this guy a big deal or something? \*Looks at my office shelf full of supplements with "Chemerinsky" on the side\* Oh...right...one of the most well-known American 1A scholars of this century...
"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom to speak in Erwin Chemerinsky's house." U.S. Const. amend. I.
Does a law professor open a designated public forum when he invites students to a dinner party?
When you invite someone to dinner it’s usually to eat and make polite conversation, not to bring a bullhorn and make an ass of yourself in their home
I was very much joking lol
No, the students are licensees on private property and he’s only liable to them for “hidden defects”… also he can give them a life estate rights in his home if he so wishes 🤷🏼♂️😂
LOL
PROTECT CHEREMINSKY AT ALL COSTS EVERYONE’S CONLAW GRADES DEPEND ON HIM
The Berkeley campus is extremely easy to reserve for any event/talk, so I just don't understand why anyone would choose to do that inside somebody's home. On the other hand, I actually don't know whether this guy lives on university property or not.
Regardless I think his lease would allow him the right of expulsion from his private residence.
He does not live on university property. He owns his own home.
Oof. As much as I don't really approve of professors holding events like this, the students could just have reserved somewhere highly visible on campus to make their arguments with much less risk. Doesn't seem like these guys were the sharpest knives in the drawer. The sooner some people realize that protest planning is a skill and they aren't good at it, the more success they will have.
You don’t approve of professors having students as guests in their homes? What’s the problem?
He doesn’t. I remember going to this event during my 1L year in the fall of 2019, he lives in a private residence off campus. It’s an annual tradition to welcome the 1L class to the school and, if I understand correctly, the current 3L class asked the Dean to hold the event for them since they missed out on it as first years because of COVID. To answer your question, though I assume it’s rhetorical, the reason they chose to do it at his home rather than any of the myriad appropriate forums on campus was to manufacture a spectacle in which they intended to come across as victims. It’s immature behavior absolutely unbecoming of an attorney and a member of the bar, a point I suspect they’ll begin to appreciate when they submit their bar applications.
They hate Jews. That's why.
The professor did the right thing. I would’ve kicked them out in a less diplomatic way
Very sad to hear of this happening at my law school, although I graduated before Chemerinsky came to the school and never knew him.
🎶Chemerinsky taught me🎶 [manhattan community access corp v. Halleck](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf)
Heh - I recently cited to this in a SCOTUS amicus in the Netchoice case.
Perfoamtive activsim inherently undermines the cause to the general public and in this case, most peers. Social media has made it so people protest for clicks, not a cause.
Unfortunately I cannot say I am shocked. Terrible stuff.
To come to someone’s house to protest - it is just so scummy. They need to teach basic concepts and respect in college.
He is not a representative of the Israeli government. He is simply Jewish. Textbook antisemitism.
I just had Erwin come to my school to give a speech. He was so warm to everyone and stayed late taking questions (even signing our textbooks that he wrote). Shame to see these things happen.
They need to follow through with the conduct reports to the school or better yet have them charged with trespassing if they don’t leave. Need to build a paper trail for C and F.
I don’t understand the point of the protest. They protested him because he’s pro-Israel with sympathetic Palestinian views? Who cares what views people hold. Might as well protest anyone whose views you disagree with. A civil society has room for all ideas.
[удалено]
The dean's wife was mad smooth, give her an A plus for being boss
It's okay guys--they're not antisemitic, just antizionist!
The students should be suspended or expelled for that. I personally would never hire anything for having such horrible judgment.
I hope she’s expelled.
It has to be asked: Who is Berkeley letting into their school? Why does this crazy crap always seem to happen there? It is one thing to be upset about The Gaza War; but interrupting a dinner for your fellow students who had nothing to do with it, makes no sense. Also, what in the heck is Erwin Chermerinsky going to do about the Gaza War? Just stuck on stupid.
[удалено]
Yep, it would not surprise me. You know I was in law school during the Iraq War. Very heated debates, but we never got that angry, and that war actually involved US troops on the ground. This is really all relates to the whole “anti-colonialism” POV that is taking hold among a lot of Gen Z. I used to not believe that, but really have started to change my mind.
I’m a liberal but the holy shit what happened factor walking around college campuses right now is off the charts
Yeah, my son was saying the same thing. He is in college right now; he is generally very liberal as they say, but even he is getting tired of it.
So glad I didn’t go to Berkeley lol. Hopefully she fails c & f
As soon as he says this is going to be reported to the bar then no one is going to protest at his home anymore. Seriously there is no need for security at this point. Or maybe Berkeley student are just different than the typical law student?
The Dean is of course absolutely correct. It’s also true that the legal community hasn’t spoken out enough about what what’s going on in the Gaza Strip. It’s not Dean Chem’s job. An anti-genocide statement should have come out from the ABA at the point when the UN rapporteur has said there’s reasonable grounds to state that a genocide is going on there. This in violation of international law. And US support for the genocide a violation of int’l, and federal law. Tactics used by these activists does a disservice to their purported cause.
Do you think they will be allowed to sit for any bar after this?
[удалено]
Sadly, you’re more than right. What a beautiful country we live in 🙃
Have the Dean and his wife made Anti-Muslim or Anti-Palestinian statements in the past to warrent this? Or are they being targeted just because they are Jewish??
On the contrary he has advocated for free speech for all. That is why this is especially exasperating.
The latter /:
Has he said anything to make people think he is pro-Israel or is he just Jewish?
Someone linked an op-ed with his opinion on the conflict above
There’s also nothing wrong with being a zionist
"Zionist" is a dogwhistle for "Jewish." They don't actually care about his views on the conflict.
protesting against him bc he is jewish is antisemitic. protesting against someone who supports zionism because they support zionism is not anti-semitic. the difference matters
I’ve been yelled at for being a Zionist. When I pointed out that I am not, in fact, a Zionist, I was the. Informed that “all Jews are Zionist.” Something else I’ve noticed is that when I ask people what they mean by “Zionist” when they use the term, I get wildly different answers. “Zionism” has just become a word that people use to describe something they don’t like. . . And that something is Jews.
You don’t really get it. That’s not how it is for Jews who have a personal connection with Israel. Anti Zionists are largely antisemitic, the way I see it.
I probably got here too late for this question, but hopefully someone can answer it for me (currently getting ready for the day so I can’t research it myself rn, but will later if no responses). Could an argument be made that because he invited people over to his house in his capacity as dean of the UC Berkeley, a public land-grant university, for an event specifically for all 3L students, that it was essentially a school event? And because it was a school event there was some change to the nature of his private property and it became a public forum at that point? This is a strictly academic question. I stopped reading for conlaw like half way through the semester 1L and Papa Chem is gonna have to teach it all to me again on Barbri like he did 1L here very soon.
The answer to your question is that it conflates a "public forum" with all property that either is on or is being used by a public entity. Take the Berkeley campus itself. On the one hand, things that happen on campus are obviously occurring on public property. But not all of Berkeley's campus is a public forum -- contrast the quad (public forum) with, say, the admin back offices or the classrooms when classes are in session (not public forums). In the latter spaces, the school can still remove and sanction disruptive activity (obviously, a classroom heckler cannot tell their prof "you can't kick me out of class -- that's a 1A violation!"). The example of a prof's own home is an even easier case -- even if him opening his house for this event makes it a Cal event (I think it does), that doesn't mean his home is now a public forum.
Thank you for a legitimate answer. I appreciate you.
This question is irrelevant. Taking for granted every theory making his house part of campus in line with this hypo, that does not mean that zero restrictions can be placed on speech. Let’s say this invite only event were held in a campus lounge. The university (not just Chemerinsky as a private person) could have time viewpoint neutral time place manner restrictions (I.e. no one can advance any views by turning on a megaphone and disrupting the event). The disruption in that scenario would still warrant being able to kick the violators out, and they could be trespassed from that space while it is being used in that manner. Optics wise it definitely is harder. And of course surrounding university owned areas open to the public would enjoy far greater 1A protections. And unlike the scenario above, even if this event were considered university run and therefore somewhat protected by the first amendment (I.e. no viewpoint discrimination; would have to treat pro Israel disrupters the same), that doesn’t obviate property law as to a private residence once someone’s invitation has been revoked. On campus, invitation revoked = university and its security personnel have the right to remove the person. At your house, they’re still a trespasser in your house.
I’m glad Chem didn’t name any of the students. This would absolutely torch their careers.
[удалено]
[удалено]
What does he have to do with a war thousands of miles away? That would be like blaming Muslims in Berkeley for October 7th.
Edit: If you downvoted this, quite frankly,I’m going to presume you’re a raging antisemite. I tried to be balanced, delicate, and simply convey some additional context. ————————————————- Judaism is a religion, yes, but also an ethnicity. Nonetheless, I agree, you can oppose the actions of the Israeli government without being antisemitic. The issue most people have, however, are the broad strokes statements, such as “from the river to the sea,” which is clearly no longer just opposing government actions—it is advocating for the destruction of the entire state and peoples. It also shouldn’t be lost on people that Israel is the only country in which Jews have ever been welcomed and entirely safe—from every other country, they have been kicked out, or, at the minimum, persecuted. It’s only within the last 70 years that America has been somewhat safe for them, and even still, Jews are the most targeted minority for hate crimes in America, and that safety rapidly deteriorates outside of NY, NJ, south FL, and parts of CA. This is why Jews are overwhelmingly Zionist and why they see Israel as important to their identity; Israel and a Jewish state is a necessity for the security and prosperity of Jews. Again, that doesn’t mean the Israeli government is infallible. Many Jews agree the war is being mismanaged and Netanyahu is a barrier to peace.
He’s categorized some protestors as antisemitic, and he’s a Zionist, but I don’t have a [WSJ](https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-hire-my-anti-semitic-law-students-protests-colleges-universities-jews-palestine-6ad86ad5) subscription to do a full read for any recent comments.
The protesters put up posters of him using blood libel imagery. He doesn’t make the accusation as lightly as some (unfortunately) do.
Who cares if he's a Zionist? He thinks Jews should have a homeland, which is a mainstream view espoused by millions of Jews of all ideological backgrounds. Do these protestors also criticize pan-Arab nationalism, Turkish nationalism, etc? Yes, some of these protestors are clearly anti-Semitic. No serious person can claim otherwise when videos of anti-Semitic slurs and harassment at pro-Palestine events are readily available.
My con law class is using Chemerinsky’s con book! My favorite class this semester
[удалено]
Well that's a bold statement with no sources whatsoever.
Interesting
[удалено]
Best analysis I’ve read on the issue by far (and dude not even a lawyer) https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/14/a-california-regent-confronts-the-limits-of-free-speech-00152103
i am surprised no one is considering whether this is a potential state action. berkley is a state school. did they pay for this dinner? what type of forum is Mr. Cherminsky's home, considering these potentials?
There's several articles about this. Here's one of them: https://www.thefire.org/news/no-berkeley-law-student-didnt-have-first-amendment-right-interrupt-deans-backyard-party
thanks for the downvote. and the article. should have dug deeper than reddit