By Hillah Greenberg and Mia Toubian
The Daily Bruin Editorial Board has a responsibility to engage with contentious issues with intellectual rigor, sound argumentation, and journalistic integrity. Their recent editorial, however, seemingly engages in fallacious reasoning, misleading rhetoric, and a conflation of distinct issues. The statement discusses the punitive measures taken against clubs for antisemitic rhetoric and violent actions against a Jewish administrator. However, the Editorial Board refrains from explicitly addressing the issue of antisemitism and thereby minimizes the significance of the attack on an administrator at his family home. Given the sensitivity and significance of antisemitism, it is imperative to dismantle these flawed arguments and provide a clearer, more reasoned perspective of the violent nature of SJP’s actions.
In a protest organized by graduate students of SJP, students harassed Jewish UC Regent Jonathan “Jay” Sures in his private home through vandalism, threats, and preventing him from leaving. Students disturbed the peace in the neighborhood, prevented Sures’s family from leaving their home, and took further harassment and intimidation to social media. Students hung hateful banners on the Sures resident hedges, stained their home with red handprints, and hung up images of Sures.
Law enforcement policies exist to handle immediate safety threats and broader public order concerns. University policies govern student conduct and organized campus activity. UCLA’s decision to discipline SJP is not an endorsement of past police misconduct, nor does it absolve UCLA of responsibility for previous failures in responding to counter-protest violence. The two are separate issues with distinct oversight mechanisms. Accountability does not function as a zero-sum game. Just as past police failures must be addressed, so too must present violations of university policies. A flawed system does not become fairer by allowing future wrongdoing to go unchecked. The correct response to past failures is to demand better enforcement moving forward—not to excuse misconduct under the guise of rectifying historical injustices.
One of the editorial’s most glaring errors is the conflation of law enforcement actions with UCLA’s internal disciplinary measures. Their argument suggests that by holding Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) accountable for their repeated misconduct, UCLA is somehow endorsing state violence. This is an illogical leap. UCLA’s decision to penalize SJP is not about suppressing political viewpoints but rather upholding institutional standards for lawful and ethical conduct. The editorial conflates legitimate protest with acts of intimidation. Vandalizing a private residence is not an expression of free speech; it is an act of coercion that surpasses the boundaries of acceptable campus demonstrations. The disciplinary actions are justifiable because attacking someone in their family residence represents an escalation of protest tactics. It is a deliberate attempt to intimidate and make someone feel unsafe in their private life, not just in their professional capacity. This action shifts political protest to personal intimidation, going beyond the role that student activism should embody.
These violent acts are particularly concerning because they send the message that personal violence is permissible; specifically that targeting individuals, rather than institutions, is an acceptable form of protest. This creates a dangerous precedent where personal attacks become seen as permissible when individuals are perceived to embody the values or policies of an institution. In the case of antisemitism, this targeting often becomes personal and identity-based — with Jewish individuals being singled out due to their perceived association with political or institutional actions — regardless of their actual role or beliefs. This blurs the line between political protest and violence, where personal identities are attacked instead of engaging with ideas or policies in a respectful and intelligible manner.
Not all speech is protected under the auspices of the First Amendment when it involves harassment or targeted intimidation. While students have every right to express their political beliefs, that right does not extend to threatening individuals or disrupting private spaces. UCLA did not ban pro-Palestinian speech; the university imposed consequences for specific behaviors that violated policies of student conduct. The argument that all protests must be treated equally overlooks the fact that different protests employ different tactics.
The editorial suggests that punishing SJP is equivalent to UCLA broadly suppressing free speech. This slippery slope argument ignores the reality that the university is responding to specific violations of conduct—not censoring political viewpoints. UCLA has permitted and tolerated numerous pro-Palestinian protests; the issue at hand is the method, not the message. Holding SJP accountable does not create a precedent for banning all protest activity. If an organization engages in harassment, vandalism, or obstructs movement, its suspension is not an attack on its ideology but rather a direct consequence to remedy its actions. Discipline for misconduct does not equate to authoritarian suppression.
In light of UCLA’s recent disciplinary actions, it is important to consider the context in which the decisions surrounding violence and misconduct have been made. They must therefore be understood within this framework; as a response to behaviors that go beyond peaceful protest and engage in intimidation, vandalism, and harassment. UCLA’s decision to hold these groups accountable is not merely about addressing individual acts of violence, but about sending a clear message that such conduct will not be tolerated – particularly in a climate of hostility toward Jewish students.
The editorial relies heavily on emotionally charged language relating to an attack by outside agitators on the Gaza Solidarity Encampment last Spring—such as “broken bones and bleeding skulls”—to frame UCLA’s actions as hypocritical without substantively engaging with the question of whether SJP’s conduct on a separate occasion warranted disciplinary action. At the same time, the editorial downplays SJP’s actions in their recent demonstration, reducing them to “cloth banners and red handprints” while simultaneously claiming that UCLA’s decision creates fear. This self-contradiction exposes the editorial’s selective framing. If fear is a valid concern when addressing UCLA’s policies, it is an important consideration in the evaluation of the impact of SJP’s actions.
Antisemitism manifests not only in overt acts of violence but also in rhetoric that fosters hatred and discrimination. The surge in antisemitism at UCLA has created a hostile climate that threatens the open exchange of ideas and undermines campus safety. The failure of the Editorial Board to address this issue undermines its credibility and reflects a selective approach to discrimination, where some forms of hate are acknowledged and others are dismissed. The Editorial Board endeavors to comment on ideological cherry picking, but engages in the offense themselves.
The absence of a thoughtful discussion on antisemitism in response to the repeated violent insurrections suggests that the Editorial Board is more concerned with defending the actions of a student group than addressing the harms caused by that group’s actions. This oversight of Jewish students’ concerns raises questions about how antisemitism is prioritized in the Board’s analysis. UCLA’s administration, on the other hand, has acted with consistency in maintaining the values it seeks to promote on campus. The measures taken against violence are not arbitrary crackdowns but rather necessary steps to ensure that the university remains a place where intimidation and discrimination have no place. Upholding these standards is crucial for preserving a safe and respectful learning environment for all students, regardless of their ethnic background.
A university’s editorial board carries a duty to uphold accuracy, fact-check arguments, and avoid mischaracterizing events. This editorial fails on all counts by: relying on emotional appeals instead of logical reasoning; misrepresenting UCLA’s actions as censorship rather than discipline for misconduct; and conflating distinct issues such as law enforcement policies and university disciplinary measures. If the Editorial Board’s intent was to highlight concerns about UCLA’s handling of campus activism, they could have done so without resorting to faulty logic and misleading rhetoric. Their responsibility as an editorial board is to hold institutions accountable while also critically evaluating activist groups.
The Daily Bruin Editorial Board should strive for higher journalistic standards. As members of a university that values critical and analytical thinking, we must all resist the temptation to oversimplify complex issues and instead engage with them in a way that promotes meaningful discourse. Emotional rhetoric should not overshadow logical consistency and factual accuracy. We urge the Editorial Board to think harder and do better when making charged claims with real-world implications. The credibility of student journalism, safety of Jewish students, and the broader intellectual integrity of UCLA depend on it.
Cover image by authors
The views expressed in this post reflect the views of the author(s) and not UCLA or ASUCLA Communications Board.
