Watched his testimony this morning and thought he did a very good job. Was refreshing to see after so many of his colleagues were absolute weasels.

But... there was a small thing that I know is huge to many people on here... and I think you'll like it...

Haha the Cal pin?

I low key would've laughed if he wore a "uc Berkeley" pin and see some heads explode here

Fiat Lux! So proud of our Chancellor for upholding the basic rights of people to speak their mind. That UC Berkeley is one of the homes of Free Speech and being pro-palestinian is not necessarily anti-semetic, anymore than being against Israel's actions makes you anti-semetic. How dare we be nuanced and multi-faceted about our views? How dare we be holistic? What do you see here? UC Berkeley gold darn it!

Free speech? Did you see the near riots at Berkeley when certain selective speakers were invited?

Riots or protests? Big difference.

CalBearinLA said:

---

Riots or protests? Big difference.

---

Attendees were bloodied, windows of the building were broken, and all the attendees of the talk had to be evacuated by police. So you tell me.

What do you consider fire bombs and destruction of private property? A mostly peaceful protest?

CalBearinLA said:

---

maxer said:

---

CalBearinLA said:

---

Riots or protests? Big difference.

---

Attendees were bloodied, windows of the building were broken, and all the attendees of the talk had to be evacuated by police. So you tell me.

---

I mean that's the point I was asking. I don't know. So thanks for telling me.

Settle down all. I'm not up to date on all that happened. Just an honest question.

---

I'm so used to toxic antisemitic online discourse I jumped the gun. Apologies.

It was a riot.

As a Cal grad I was embarrassed and disappointed by people rioting against free speech at Berkeley.

I didn't agree with a the views of some of the people who wanted to speak, but there is never an excuse for physical violence and property destruction.

Cal can't claim to be a safe place for free speech.

I was at Cal for the USC game in 2023. Fwiw, here's a photo of a peaceful pro-Israeli demonstration happening at Sproul on 10/27/23, 1:29pm. The demonstration went on for about an hour, without incident of any kind. You can see a Palestinian flag.

I'm not saying it was always like this, but at least on the day I was there, there was free and peaceful speech permitted, and even the counter-speech was peaceful.

FWIW I agree that more should have been done to prevent violence. I also support the University denouncing or preventing organized speech that calls for the killing of any people. This said, the current national moment is an Orwellian double speak. Most of my friends are vehemently opposed to Israel's actions in Gaza after the first few days, including our Jewish friends, and none of us are anti-semetic. In our national dialogue we struggle to distinguish between the religion and the government. I think Lyons was trying to make that point.

I wish I could interpret your sarcasm for humor, but alas. I'd like to hear the argument, if you have one, given this is a Cal site, that being pro-palestinian in terms of their right to life, is antisemetic? Or that condemning the actions of Israel the state makes one antisemetic? Seriously. As anyone can see I was speaking for myself, and not telling you what or how to think. But since you took such offense, I'd be curious what triggered you and why you object so much to my staking out a space for my peer group to be pro-human.

Moderators I beg you to move this to off-topic…

We're here to talk Cal sports

I'm about to try and make a nuanced argument, which is probably a mistake on a message board, but here goes. I agree what Israel is doing in Gaza is past the point of being reasonable, and I also complete abhor what is reportedly happening in the West Bank with settlers attacking the Palestinian residents, apparently with at least tacit support from the Israeli Army.

But I also vehemently disagree with those who say that any collective punishment for the Palestinian people is wrong, because the logical extension of that argument is that the allies shouldn't have invaded and killed German civilians just because because of Hitler. At some point, if you have an evil leader, the population that allows that leader to stay in place has to take some responsibility for doing something about it.

There has to ultimately be a two-state solution, and that has to include some way to insure that the Palesinian state recognizes Israel's right to exist, and doesn't even tacitly support actions that attack Israel and its Jewish residents. Two rights don't make a wrong. Both the Palestinian and Jewish claims to the land go back far enough in time that I view both as legitimate, and that neither cancels out the other. Ultimately, I think what will happen is what happened in Northern Ireland, that a generation will come along that decide it's better for the two sides not to kill each other, even if they still don't like each other. That's still a ways off. Netanyahu is the last of the generation of Israeli's that were themselves terrorists, doing things like bombing the King David Hotel to get the British to leave Palestine. I wish I had some magic solution, but I don't. It's a difficult problem, and I'm sure this thread is now headed for the off-topic board.

Hopefully everyone here knows Israel has been offering two state solutions since before they were granted nation status and the other side has refused. Hard to make arrangements with a group that wants you dead and says you have no right to exist.

Their arrangements have been anything but balanced, there's 2 sides to every story and the abominations happening in Palestine cannot be justified by anything

calbear91 said:

---

I wish I could interpret your sarcasm for humor, but alas. I'd like to hear the argument, if you have one, given this is a Cal site, that being pro-palestinian in terms of their right to life, is antisemetic? Or that condemning the actions of Israel the state makes one antisemetic? Seriously. As anyone can see I was speaking for myself, and not telling you what or how to think. But since you took such offense, I'd be curious what triggered you and why you object so much to my staking out a space for my peer group to be pro-human.

---

Well then main point I was making is that somehow Jews are the only ethnic group that is required to explain why, when they say something is making them unsafe or discriminated against, are told they are wrong by members of the majority group.

The second point, I suppose, is that only Jews seem to be held responsible for the actions of a government. I don't agree with most of what China or Russia does, but I don't hold Russian Americans or Chinese Americans responsible for them. Nor do I question all Russian Americans or Chinese Americans about their opinions about Putin or Xi before they're allowed to participate in public life.

Third, there have been a bunch of antisemitic incidents at Berkeley, and if you can't see that, then that's your prejudice and not my problem. Here are some:

People I know were referred to as "dirty Jews" at the riot when the Israeli guy was speaking.

Jews were prevented from going through Sather Gate last school year, and interrogated on their beliefs about Israel.

Almost all Berkeley Law student groups passed a policy preventing any speaker from speaking at the school if they did not agree to disavow Israel or if they "identified as Zionists".

This is antisemitism and if you can't see that, then you need to take a long hard look in the mirror.

I'm done explaining your prejudice to you, and this thread.

maxer said:

---

calbear91 said:

---

I wish I could interpret your sarcasm for humor, but alas. I'd like to hear the argument, if you have one, given this is a Cal site, that being pro-palestinian in terms of their right to life, is antisemetic? Or that condemning the actions of Israel the state makes one antisemetic? Seriously. As anyone can see I was speaking for myself, and not telling you what or how to think. But since you took such offense, I'd be curious what triggered you and why you object so much to my staking out a space for my peer group to be pro-human.

---

Well then main point I was making is that somehow Jews are the only ethnic group that is required to explain why, when they say something is making them unsafe or discriminated against, are told they are wrong by members of the majority group.

The second point, I suppose, is that only Jews seem to be held responsible for the actions of a government. I don't agree with most of what China or Russia does, but I don't hold Russian Americans or Chinese Americans responsible for them. Nor do I question all Russian Americans or Chinese Americans about their opinions about Putin or Xi before they're allowed to participate in public life.

Third, there have been a bunch of antisemitic incidents at Berkeley, and if you can't see that, then that's your prejudice and not my problem. Here are some:

People I know were referred to as "dirty Jews" at the riot when the Israeli guy was speaking.

Jews were prevented from going through Sather Gate last school year, and interrogated on their beliefs about Israel.

Almost all Berkeley Law student groups passed a policy preventing any speaker from speaking at the school if they did not agree to disavow Israel or if they "identified as Zionists".

This is antisemitism and if you can't see that, then you need to take a long hard look in the mirror.

I'm done explaining your prejudice to you, and this thread.

---

I appreciate you explaining yourself. It's no surprise the subject of Israel and Palestine would generate strong feelings. I will reply respectfully with the following points of discussion:

To your first point, it's not the case that only Jews are the only ethic group when feeling persecuted are "required" to explain why, when they feel unsafe, are told they are wrong by the dominant group. How about a quick look at Native American complaints about mistreatment by the dominant culture? Talk about denial of claims by the dominant group!!! How about Armenians in Turkey? How about Tibetans in China? It's rather too easy to refute this claim, but that's not the main point here. The main point should be that no group should be able to claim righteous superiority over another group as a means to suppress and dominate them.

Second point: I've stated already that we are failing to distinguish between the Jewish religion and the government of Israel. This is simple, and obvious. It is certainly antisemetic to hate or blame people of the Jewish faith simply because of their faith. It is not antisemetic to fault Israel the government for it's crimes. We should not blame Jewish people generally for the actions of Israel, I fully agree. But as you said, a people cannot be fully excused from the actions of the government they elect. This is as true for Germans, as Palestinians as the Jewish people of Israel. And us Americans, for that matter...we must say.

To your third point, I don't dispute those stories or condone any of those actions. I'm as against actions against Jews as I am against any other group of people. Horrible.

I would ask that you not interpret any of my statements as "prejudice". That's hyperbole and vitriolic-unecessary. I'm not accusing you or attacking you.

I'm a secular humanist. I believe every person has inherent dignity and rights. I abhor all actions that deny human potential. I don't excuse governments or people for being horrible, evil, corrupt. I quote Albert Camus, who was all too familiar with suffering and murder caused by governments: "I shall consistently refuse you the right to question it so long as the murder of a man angers you only when that man shares your ideas."

I will say this:

If there are protests of certain speakers happening on campus, that may or may not be justified, but it is not the University's fault that other private citizens chose to behave in a certain way. The school allowed the speakers to be invited, so that is not indicative of an anti-speech position. They can't control everyone else's response.

You could argue that in certain situations the UC failed to provide adequate security to an event, but IMO without some very thorough evidence it's hard to say if a lack of security represents an ideological choice to tacitly prevent the speech or simple mistaken assumptions about how much would be needed. I would default to the latter explanation in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary. Again, the speakers were invited in the first place so it does not seem like the University itself is opposed to them.

maxer said:

---

The second point, I suppose, is that only Jews seem to be held responsible for the actions of a government. I don't agree with most of what China or Russia does, but I don't hold Russian Americans or Chinese Americans responsible for them. Nor do I question all Russian Americans or Chinese Americans about their opinions about Putin or Xi before they're allowed to participate in public life.

---

I agree with this. The problem is that the Israeli government wants you to think that their actions represent the will of all Jews and that if you oppose their policies you are being antisemitic. I don't think I'm being hyperbolic in saying that; it's overtly in the messaging and propaganda that comes out of that government, especially under Netanyahu, and from their lobby organizations here in the US.

So I agree to not hold Jewish people broadly responsible for the actions of one nation. In turn, I hope you will agree that opposing the actions of that government does not demonstrate prejudice against their entire people, or the ethnic group they claim to represent.

This perspective shouldn't be viewed as damaging or anti semitic, yet certain people continuously try to persecute those against Israel's actions by generalizing that to the Jewish people.

As to the original topic:

I did say when Lyons was hired that he didn't seem like someone who would give dumba** responses like the Ivy Leaguers did under Congressional grilling and that appears to have been a correct assumption.