Groups argue that GSA funding restriction did not defy First Amendment
By Alejandra Reyes-Velarde
Dec. 3, 2015 5:25 p.m.
Several legal groups and sponsors wrote a letter to UCLA Wednesday, defending the graduate student government against claims it violated students’ First Amendment rights.
The American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative legal advocacy organization, the Zionist Organization of America and StandWithUs, pro-Israel organizations, and the Lawfare Project wrote the letter to Chancellor Gene Block in response to accusations by three other legal groups and the Students for Justice in Palestine.
The letter claimed GSA did not violate students’ First Amendment rights in adding a stipulation to its funding of the Diversity Caucus Town Hall.
“The law is clear that GSA may … choose not to speak on the issue of Israel-Palestine politics or use government funds to subsidize speech on that topic. Making such a decision … in no way restricts or otherwise interferes with the private speech of any student organization,” the letter stated.
On Nov. 18, three other legal groups sent a letter to Block saying they believe restricting funding based on student groups’ political stances violates their First Amendment rights.
The Nov. 18 letter was in response to a thread of emails between the GSA president Milan Chatterjee and the Diversity Caucus organizers, who requested $2,000 from the GSA to hold a town hall on Nov. 5. In the emails, Chatterjee added a stipulation to the funds saying the town hall would not receive funding if it was associated with groups supporting the “Divest from Israel” movement.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict concerns the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and what some say is the occupation of the Gaza Strip. The conflict has been a divisive issue on campus for several years.
The ACLJ letter also specified the Diversity Caucus sought from GSA a sponsorship of its town hall, rather than requesting funding through the GSA’s discretionary funding.
“It is absolutely clear that if the group in question had been seeking funding through the normal channels … they would have received it, … without this stipulation attached,” ACLJ said in the letter.
Chatterjee said he is not in contact with the legal groups and he thinks the letter was written based on their independent analysis.
Chatterjee has said GSA passed a resolution on Oct. 26 stating the association would remain neutral on the Israel-Palestine issue. However, on Nov. 24, he released a statement which said GSA acted on a conceptual resolution that was not actually binding to the association. He added the resolution would not be binding unless the forum voted on it.
Rahim Kurwa, member of SJP and a graduate student in sociology, said he thinks because the resolution was not binding, GSA does not have the power to make stipulations and the letter’s claims are invalid.
“These are still student funds that come from student fees,” he said. “They are still governed by the First Amendment.”
Chatterjee said the legal groups’ letter is not about the neutrality resolution, but about the use of cabinet funding.
He said he agrees with the legal groups’ claim that SJP misrepresented facts.
“SJP and their lawyers omitted facts from their legal letter and gave the wrong impression to the student body,” he said.
GSA held a forum on Wednesday in which it allowed public commenters to voice their concerns to the association about the matter. Chatterjee said the forum voted to table its own discussions about the subject until its next meeting. The letters’ sponsors could not be reached for comment.
Contributing reports by Ravija Harjai, Bruin contributor.
