Its lawyers just filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, and UCLA announced this to employees, with a link to FAQs “to help employees understand how to carry out their responsibilities consistent with the requirements of the preliminary injunction.” Some excerpts from the FAQs, which generally strike me as consistent with the injunction:
University policy states that no individual or group of individuals may prohibit or obstruct any student from accessing any ordinarily available campus areas, programs or activities on the basis of their religion, race, or any other protected characteristic, or on the basis of their political or other viewpoints, including their beliefs about the state of Israel. Individuals must also comply with all of the University’s time, place, and manner policies and other policies that may impact campus events or expressive activities.
If any individual or group of individuals is prohibiting or obstructing students from accessing ordinarily available campus areas, programs or activities in violation of University policy, University officials will act to promptly restore access to students, while also limiting risks of substantial disruptions to campus operations or risks to health and safety. That includes by:
Informing individuals that they are engaging in a policy violation and directing them to change their conduct and/or remove the barrier to access. Warning individuals of the potential consequences of failure to comply and further directing them to comply. If individuals fail to comply and barriers to access remain, the University will involve appropriate resources which may include the Campus Fire Marshal, the UC Police Department, and/or other state or local law enforcement agencies to assist with removal of the barriers to access and take other appropriate action which may include involving law enforcement and may result in discipline and/or Instituting the applicable campus review process for members of the University community who are cited for a violation of campus rules or law.
What should employees do if the barrier to access cannot promptly be removed?
In some instances, it may not be possible to promptly remove a barrier to access, such as where doing so might threaten the health and safety of University community members or campus safety teams. In those circumstances, University employees should take alternative measures to promptly restore access while efforts are undertaken to remove the barrier to access. These measures may include:
Providing alternative access to a building or space, such as through a different doorway or walkway. If feasible, moving the specific program or activity to another building or space to ensure continued access for all student If it is not possible to promptly remove the barrier or to promptly move the program or activity to another location, consistent with the requirements set forth in the injunction, the University may deem it necessary to deny access to any students to a particular space or program or activity until access can be restored for all studen For instance, if access to a University library is blocked for some students and the University cannot promptly restore access, then the University may need to close services in the library for all students until access can be restored.
The Court‘s order covers “any ordinarily available programs, activities, and campus areas.” What does that mean?
The University will broadly construe campus areas, programs, or activities to include any area of campus that is ordinarily open to students, as well as any building, class, or activity that students can ordinarily access, including Zoom or digital programs, and University-sponsored off-campus activities. The order does not require that students have access to areas that are not ordinarily open to all students, such as faculty lounges, administrative offices, and student housing, but students may not be excluded from such areas solely on the basis of their religion or other protected characteristic, or political views, including their beliefs about the state of Israel….
The Court‘s order said that the University’s campus security teams should not “aid or participate” in “any obstruction of access for Jewish students to ordinarily available programs, activities, and campus areas.” How should a security team ensure it does not “aid or participate” in such an effort?
If individuals are obstructing access for any students to ordinarily available programs, activities, or campus areas and do not disburse when instructed to do so, campus security teams should take actions to promptly restore access to the program, activity, or campus area and to elevate the issue to the appropriate campus official if assistance is needed. As explained above, if it is not possible to promptly remove the barrier or to promptly move the program or activity to another location, the University may deem it necessary to deny access to all students to a particular space or program or activity until access can be restored for all students….
Does this mean that the University will prohibit protests that express a pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel message?
No. The First Amendment protects the rights of students to protest whatever their viewpoint, and the Court made clear that its order was not meant to limit the content or viewpoints espoused in any protest or other expressive activities. Protests, however, must comply with the University’s time, place, and manner rules, as well as other content- and viewpoint-neutral University policies. such as those that prohibit threats or violence. In addition, protesters may not restrict the free movement of others on campus by blocking or obstructing access to a University facility or space.
The post UCLA Dismisses Its Appeal of Injunction That Ordered It to Avoid Repetition of Exclusion of Jewish or Pro-Israel Students from Parts of Campus appeared first on Reason.com.
