UCLA Chancellor Criticized for Condemning Antisemitism and Terrorism

UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk has faced backlash from some faculty members for his condemnation of a Sept. 11 symposium held at the university's law school, which featured a panelist who represented Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Frenk's statement, which declared that "UCLA's values are clear. We reject antisemitism and terrorism in all their forms," has been interpreted by some professors as a criticism of the event itself.

The UCLA Academic Senate wrote to Frenk expressing "concerns and reservations" that his statement was "interpreted as criticizing the law school event." In his response, Frenk reiterated that "academic freedom does not require us to be neutral about antisemitism or terrorism," and emphasized the university's commitment to supporting community members affected by such issues.

The controversy centers on a Sept. 11 symposium that examined the U.S. response to the 2001 terror attacks. One of the panelists was a lawyer who had represented Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who also allegedly confessed to decapitating Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was Jewish. Judea Pearl, Daniel Pearl's father and a professor at UCLA, reportedly spoke critically of the event.

This incident follows a period of heightened campus tension, referencing a previous "encampment" that reportedly excluded journalists and limited access for Jewish students. Frenk's initial reaction to the 9/11 forum was to oppose it, stating his condemnation of terrorism and antisemitism, though he did not attempt to stop the event or remove it from campus.

Critics argue that the faculty's objection misses the mark, suggesting that academic freedom should not be used to defend speakers who engage with or represent individuals accused of terrorism or hate crimes, especially when such events occur on a campus with a significant Jewish student population and in the context of recent campus events. The author of the original notes posits that Frenk was too lenient and should have told the objecting faculty members that if they disagreed with the university's stance against antisemitism and terrorism, they were "free to leave."