I even saw a gang of MSU try to start a fight this past May with the pro-Israel activists: a girl in a hijab was floating around in back with a big camera pointed fixedly at them before they even reach the pro-Israel students. One MSU student called a pro-Israel student a “baby killer”, and when the two lunged at each other, the girl in the hijab jumped into the middle of the conflict and began taking pictures.

“Moral restraint”. Haha.

Your posts gave me a much needed laugh. Thank you for having a ridiculous outlook on life.

And to Ms. Soliman-

Defacing antoher nation’s flag, calling pro-Israel activists “baby killers”, and flipping off camera men is not my idea of exercising “moral restraint”.

Consider this turn of events the MSU’s comeupannce. It’s about time.

I responded to you but it was apparently censored. I just want to say you’ve got some nerve calling anybody a racist given what you write for la voz de aztlan.

Are you not the one who wrote the following pieces for the anti-Jewish website La voz de Aztlan? (They are readily available on your site.)

(Nicholas) Berg decapitation was filmed inside Abu Ghraib (May 2004)

An egregious Zionist assault on academic freedom at UCSB

Eisner’s New Film “The Alamo” will increase “Anti-Mexicanism”

Mel Gibson, Anne Emmerich, Jesus and the Jews

The Israelization of the US and its Danger to Mexico.

I would invite the reader to go to la voz de aztlan website and read those ridiculous articles (and all the others) and what they say about Jewish people. They speak for themselves.

By the way, who reported me to the FBI, you? If so, I will put that on my resume.

Anyone associated with La voz de Aztrlan should be embarassed to accuse anyone else of being a hater .

There are two basic issues involved. The first is whether or not the MSU violated University policies and campus regulations on noncommercial fundraising. Only one of those regulations (42.30 (4)) involves funds being raised for illegal purposes. The administration has turned the second issue, illegal fundraising, over to the FBI for investigation.

The other issues for UCI (regardless of who made the complaint or what the FBI may do) is whether the MSU violated the policies and regulations. Was the fundraising was first approved by the Office of the Dean of Students? It was not. The “technicality” that the MSU admits it violated in its initial response was a representation on its event application was that it was NOT a fundraiser. Everyone there that night knows it was a fundraiser. There are video tapes of it.

Ms. Soliman represents that the donations were “…collected through impromptu donation boxes that were passed around at the end of the speech.” Once again everyone one there that night knows that the collections boxes were anything but impromptu. They were decorated with covering paper and had slits prepared for the money to be dropped in. There were many volunteers to distribute to each aisle and collect the boxes at the ends of the aisles. There were additional boxes set up for collections at the back of the room and at some of the doors. The MSU declined the use of the university lock box. The solicitations were made during the speech and at the end of the speeches by both Galloway and the MSU representative. (This violates yet another campus regulation as only the membership of the sponsoring organization may engage in fundraising.) The solicitations were not only made at the end of the speech.

The university must now decide whether lying on an application is a matter too trivial to concern itself with. Had the application been filled out honestly there would have been additional questions, among which are the tax exempt status of the recipient ( Viva Palestinia is not tax exempt) and accountability for the funds. These questions were conveniently avoided.

The university must now determine how an event this large could have been held, contrary to its own policies and regulations, and no notice made of it before or after until an outside organization made a complaint.

The question now is whether the administration decides if MSU is exempt from the policies all other student organizations adhere to. In a larger context, does UCI educate its Muslim students so that they understand and appreciate the norms, common understandings, and mores in this culture. They seem to appear to the MSU as just minor obstacles that are easy to get around. The administration’s leniency in enforcing its rules over the years has enabled the MSU to advance its agenda which is obviously more important to the MSU students than everything else.

This happens to be an episode where the freedom of speech and academic freedom defenses typically used by the MSU do not apply unless lying on an application can be construed as a freedom of speech issue. The consequences of the administration’s decision on this matter will determine the future for both the school and the MSU students after they graduate.

Our objectives are no different from that of other advocacy groups like the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center. When we become aware of injustices against Israel and the Jewish people, we do our best to rectify the wrongs.

That’s been our mission at UCI and other schools. We began working with Jewish students on the UCI campus several years ago and were shocked to learn about the harassment and intimidation they were facing, coming largely from the speakers and programs that the Muslim Student Union was sponsoring and promoting on a regular basis.

Hadeer Soliman claims that the Muslim Student Union’s events, at least last May, were “aimed at raising awareness about the Palestinian-Israeli issue and empowering students on campus with knowledge about the conflict.” If that were the case, then the Muslim Student Union would not have featured a speaker who compared Jews to “Shaytan – Satan.” The Muslim Student Union would not have sponsored a speaker who falsely and hatefully accused Jews of “lik[ing] to operate behind closed doors . . . in the shadows, in the dark.”

If Ms. Soliman’s claims were true, then the Muslim Student Union would not have mocked and debased the greatest tragedy not only in Jewish history, but in the history of the world – the Holocaust – by posting a photo of Anne Frank wearing a Palestinian Arab scarf or keffiyeh and falsely and absurdly comparing the systematic murder of Jews by the Nazis to the situation that currently exists in Gaza, which tragically is largely of the Palestinians’ own making.

If the Muslim Student Union were truly interested in raising awareness and educating the UCI community about the Palestinian Arab-Israeli conflict, the group would not repeatedly invite a speaker to campus who has endorsed terrorism against Israeli Jews and called for the destruction of the State of Israel. The Muslim Student Union would stop promoting lies about Jews, including that they are a “den of spies” who are arrogant and control the government and the media. They would not make outrageous comparisons between Israeli policy and that of the Nazis, which have absolutely no basis in fact. They would not deny the historical truth that Jews have lived in the Land of Israel continuously for thousands of years, even before there was a religion called Islam.

Education means using facts, not lies. It means talking about difficult and complicated issues without demonizing a people and a nation and without making fellow students feel like pariahs on their own campus.

We have worked with many students at UCI who have suffered because of the hatred and bigotry that the Muslim Student Union sponsors and promotes on a regular basis. These students have told us of being afraid to wear a Star of David or a pro-Israel tee shirt. They have told us about staying away from the campus, and even missing classes, in order to avoid the speakers and signs that the Muslim Student Union sponsors that incite hatred of Jews and Israel. They have told us about being threatened and assaulted. We know of at least two students who left UCI and transferred elsewhere because they could no longer endure the hatred and hostility engendered by the Muslim Student Union. One of these students described being yelled at with the words, “Go back to Russia where you came from,” “burn in hell,” and “f_ _king Jew.” The other student described being surrounded, threatened, and shouted at with such slurs as “f_ _king Jewish bitch” and “dirty Jew.”

Over the years, concerned Jewish students repeatedly tried to remedy the hostile environment without success. They held many meetings with UCI administrators, and even at one point worked out so-called rules of dialogue with the Muslim Student Union, so that difficult political issues could be discussed without resorting to using painful symbols like the swastika in connection with the Jewish Star of David. When these efforts failed, Jewish students decided to seek a legal remedy, which is their right – and everyone’s right – to do.

The ZOA filed a legal action on behalf of Jewish students with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. The crux of the complaint was that UCI has an obligation under federal law – Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – to ensure that its programs and activities are free from harassment, intimidation and discrimination, and that UCI was not living up to that legal obligation. There has never has been any effort to suppress or deny the rights of any group or individual, including the Muslim Student Union.

Hadeer Soliman says that “the Office for Civil Rights cleared all counts of anti-Semitism.” If she means that the Office for Civil Rights cleared UCI of all wrongdoing, she is wrong. The Office for Civil Rights examined only a very small handful of the many claims that the ZOA made on Jewish students’ behalf, and as to three or four incidents, decided that UC Irvine responded appropriately. We disagree and do not believe that those findings are supported by the evidence; our appeal is still pending.

As to most of the allegations that the ZOA made on Jewish students’ behalf, the Office for Civil Rights never even evaluated them, because the Office for Civil Rights had decided that it was no longer going to protect Jews under Title VI. The law protects against discrimination based on “race, color, or national origin.” The Office for Civil Rights had a policy in place that there were groups, such as Jews and Sikhs, which are not just religious groups but also ethnic groups. For purposes of Title VI, these groups would be considered “racial” or “national origin” groups entitled to the protections of Title VI.

Unfortunately, under new leadership, the Office for Civil Rights changed this policy. They looked at Jews as simply a religious group that did not fall within the language of the law. This was a legal determination that unfortunately led to the dismissal of most of the claims that the ZOA made on Jewish students’ behalf. The Office for Civil Rights’ decision was not based on the overwhelming evidence we submitted that showed a pattern of harassment, intimidation and discrimination coming mostly from the Muslim Student Union. Hadeer Soliman thus has her facts wrong about the outcome of the ZOA’s legal action.

While the ZOA triggered the legal effort to improve the hostile campus
environment, we have certainly not been alone in exposing and criticizing the Muslim Student Union’s level of discourse as hateful, bigoted and divisive. An independent task force in Orange County, initially commissioned by Hillel, examined allegations of anti-Semitism at UCI. The task force was made up of Jewish and non-Jewish academic, professional and religious leaders in the Orange County community. It completed a year-long investigation, including approximately 80 hours of interviews of students, faculty, administrators and community members; a document review; and first-hand observation of campus events and activities, including those sponsored by the Muslim Student Union.

This independent group of community members found that anti-Semitic acts on campus “are real and well documented. Jewish students have been harassed. Hate speech has been unrelenting.” As to the Muslim Student Union, the Task Force found that the group “is agenda driven and unchecked by the bounds of property. It allies and identifies itself with terrorist groups that are enemies of the United States.”

In May 2008 and again in May 2009, Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) expressed his concern about the Muslim Student Union’s programs. In letters to Chancellor Michael Drake, Congressman Sherman described the Muslim Student Union’s events in May 2008 and 2009 as “appear[ing] intended to encourage violence against the State of Israel and propagate the spread of anti-Semitism.”

Hadeer Soliman tries very hard to justify the Muslim Student Union’s conduct last May in sponsoring George Galloway’s speech and soliciting funds for his Viva Palestina group and convoys to Gaza. What Ms. Soliman doesn’t do is deny the truth of the ZOA’s assertions – that the Muslim Student Union misrepresented to the UCI administration that the event was not going to be a fundraiser when in fact it was, that the Muslim Student Union did not get UCI’s approval to solicit funds as required by UCI’s policies, and that the Muslim Student Union violated other policies regarding the solicitation of funds on campus. In fact, in a letter that the Muslim Student Union recently wrote to UCI’s chief campus counsel viciously attacking the ZOA, the Muslim Student Union seemed to ridicule UCI policies, calling them “technicalities,” which the Muslim Student Union acknowledges having likely breached, both with respect to the Galloway event and in the past.

Ms. Soliman says that Viva Palestina is claiming that it sent convoys to Gaza in order to provide humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza. But one of the foremost terrorism experts in this country, Steven Emerson, recently issued a 31-page report about Viva Palestina and debunked the claim that Viva Palestina’s goal is to provide for the needy. The report couldn’t be clearer: “Viva Palestina’s most visible leaders call for the elimination of the State of Israel . . . They treat Hamas leaders as the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people and provide both material and moral support to the terrorist organization.” In addition, in September 2009, a rap musician who goes by the name of M1 spoke about his experience on the Viva Palestina convoy to Gaza in July 2009, and confirmed that “we were giving our resources toward the government of Gaza” – meaning the terrorist group Hamas.

If the funds solicited by the Muslim Student Union went to Hamas, then the legal implications are serious, as not only the ZOA recognized, but UCI did as well. UCI’s chief campus counsel immediately thanked the ZOA for bringing the matter to its attention, initiated its own internal probe, and reported the matter to law enforcement. The U.S. State Department has designated Hamas as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” and for good reason. This group has deliberately murdered hundreds of innocent people, including Americans. Its charter calls for the murder of Jews and the destruction of the State of Israel. Providing material support and resources to a Foreign Terrorist Organization is illegal under federal law. If the Muslim Student Union was in any way involved in that activity, then we should all be concerned.

We take our country’s war against international terrorism seriously. The ZOA thus had the right and the duty to raise concern about what occurred at the Muslim Student Union’s event last May. Our actions had nothing to do with any effort to “mute or censor” the Muslim Student Union, as Hadeer Soliman claims.

Hadeer Soliman calls the ZOA “an external organization with no official affiliation to UCI” — as if that means that we have no right to shine a spotlight on the Muslim Student Union’s hateful and bigoted conduct, and to help students who have been harmed by it. As a college senior, Ms. Soliman should know that in this country, civil rights protections were fought for by many “outside” groups and individuals. Groups like the NAACP, comprised of people of every color and religious background, have fought against racists and racism. Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman were young men from New York, who traveled south to Mississippi in order to fight against racists and racism, and to protect African Americans’ right to vote. As a college student in the 1960’s, ZOA National President Morton Klein traveled from Philadelphia to Mississippi to fight racism and to protect African Americans’ civil rights. Would Ms. Soliman also condemn Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman and Morton Klein as outsiders because they were committed to fighting against discrimination?

It is a long-held American tradition to go wherever we are needed to fight against discrimination and injustice. The ZOA has been committed to that tradition since it was established in 1897, and we will continue to uphold that commitment. If there are students at UCI who need our help and support, we will give it. We encourage students and concerned members of the community to continue contacting us.