Irvine 11 controversy
The controversy led to a debate on whether the students' protest was First Amendment-protected free speech and whether filing criminal charges against them was fair after UCI had already disciplined them.
[1][2] Critics argued that the students were victims of selective prosecution and that they were targeted by Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas because they were Muslims and supported the Palestinians.
They found a video on YouTube showing audience members standing and interrupting former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's speech at the University of Chicago some thirty times.
[9] They decided to imitate that tactic but without engaging in dialogue which they felt would be meaningless; as audience members they would be limited to asking Oren questions that he would easily divert.
[21] Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UCI School of Law, asserted that their protest was a form of civil disobedience, not First Amendment-protected free speech and argued that they should be punished by the university, but not so severely as to ruin their educational careers.
[32] In spring 2010, UCI recommended suspending the MSU who it stated was guilty of disorderly conduct, obstructing university activities, and providing false information about its role in organizing the protest.
They argued that, since students have a long history of disrupting speeches without seeing the type of severe punishment now being considered by the UCI, it was engaging in disparate treatment - a form of discrimination.
[42] Jennifer Medina in The New York Times commented that Israeli officials have had their speeches on U.S. campuses disrupted before, but that it didn't prompt disciplinary actions.
[43] In February 2011, the Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas filed criminal misdemeanor charges against the Irvine 11, accusing them of having disturbed a lawful meeting.
[44] Facing fierce criticism, Rackauckas defended the decision by claiming that the students had attempted to stop Oren's speech and that not prosecuting them would be "a failure to uphold the Constitution.
"[45] A spokesperson for his office compared the students' protest with Ku Klux Klan attempting to silence a speech by Martin Luther King.
[44] Cecilie Surasky of the anti-Zionist Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) called the prosecution "shocking" and argued that a double standard was at play because when activists from her group disrupted a speech by Benjamin Netanyahu in November 2010 they were hailed as heroes, whereas the Irvine 11 could face prison time.
[53] The same month, 100 UCI faculty members, including five deans,[54] wrote an open letter to Rackauckas, expressing their distress over his decision to file charges and urging him to drop them.
[55][56] Another open letter to Rackauckas, penned in March by 30 Jewish studies faculty members from seven UC campuses, also called for him to drop the charges.
[59] The Center for Constitutional Rights in an amicus brief filed on behalf of the defendants cited numerous examples of "persistent, loud, and repeated" disruptions at UC speaking events that did not lead to prosecution.
[63] Rackauckas, pleased with the verdict, referred to Irvine 11's protest as "organized thuggery" and cautioned against the "dire consequences" of not standing firm against such behavior.
[65] Shakeel Syed, executive director of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, called the verdict "absolutely unbelievable" and said that it indicated that Muslims were treated as "permanent foreigners".
[62] Abdul Wahid, chairman of the UK-Executive Committee of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Britain, wrote that the verdict proved that the U.S. has a two-tier system of justice for Muslims and non-Muslims.
[70][71] Legal scholar Faiza Majeed argues that the decision to prosecute Irvine 11 will alienate minority groups, chill free speech and student activism on campuses, and undermine the university ethos.
