UCLA appeals federal court order to stop aiding antisemitic activists targeting Jewish students

Online backlash came swiftly against the move with users claiming that the university was “doubling down" on antisemitism and continuing “to prove that their antisemitism is a systemic problem.”

One social media commentator said “UCLA is represented by four attorneys from O'Melveny & Myers- a corporate 'biglaw' firm that charges approx. $3,000/hr per attorney. Not only is UCLA’s antisemitic administration doubling down on Jew Hate, they are using California taxpayer funds to do so.”

On Tuesday, US District Judge Mark C. Scarsi slammed UCLA’s hands-off policy in response to Gaza encampments on campus that discriminated against Jewish students and faculty as “unimaginable” and “abhorrent.” The judge ordered the university to prevent any future alleged antisemitic zones such as the encampments that in the Spring blocked Jewish students from accessing parts of campus.

The order was the result of a lawsuit against UCLA filed by students after anti-Israel activists set up an encampment that blocked Jewish students and faculty from accessing parts of campus unless they “disavowed Israel’s right to exist.”

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the students by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty to “ensure that Jewish students will never again face such antisemitic bigotry on campus.” The suit also described the “identification system” used by the radical activists to give out “wristbands to those who had passed their anti-Israel ideological test.”

According to the suit, UCLA provided metal barricades and sent away Jewish students but did not take any action to ensure safe passage on campus. The administration even ordered police to stand down and assigned security officers to keep those who would not agree with the activists away from the area.

The judge wrote in the order, “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.”

“This fact is so unimaginable and so abhorrent to our constitutional guarantee of religious freedom that it bears repeating, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith. UCLA does not dispute this. Instead, UCLA claims that it has no responsibility to protect the religious freedom of its Jewish students because the exclusion was engineered by third-party protesters.”

The judge added, “But under constitutional principles, UCLA may not allow services to some students when UCLA knows that other students are excluded on religious grounds, regardless of who engineered the exclusion.” The judge previously ordered UCLA to craft a plan so that Jewish students would have equal access to the campus after anti-Israel activists blocked parts of the school’s Los Angeles campus and set up checkpoints.

Following the ruling, Mary Osako, UCLA vice chancellor of strategic communications, told the Los Angeles Times that the order would "improperly hamstring" how university officials could respond to "events on the ground."

“UCLA is committed to fostering a campus culture where everyone feels welcome and free from intimidation, discrimination, and harassment,” said Osako. “The district court’s ruling would improperly hamstring our ability to respond to events on the ground and to meet the needs of the Bruin community. We’re closely reviewing the judge’s ruling and considering all our options moving forward.”