The administration's stated reason is bias and anti-semitism, are you claiming that this is the definition of urban intellectual? If so how do you defend it? If not, how do you define it?
They may not be acting in good faith but there is extremely clear evidence that UCLA has engaged in illegal racial hiring and admissions practices and has supported antisemitism on campus. UCLA chose to give them that ammunition.
(Both links are German language - that should not be a problem anymore these days I hope)
I don't see why you refuse to even consider that there is more than 1 and 0 absolutes.
The majority of protests does not create such headlines. We have had smaller and larger protests in many cities(here in Germany). People meet, walk, speak, and that is fine and nobody complains. But especially in 2024 that was not all that happened.
I read similar students about threatened Jewish students at US universities.
It is, as so often, caused by a violent and vocal minority. But if a hundred protesters are peaceful and only one hits you on the head you still have a very bad day as the victim.
Maybe it is getting better, this report says that in 2025 things have improved for both Muslim and Jewish students: "The biggest takeaways from Harvard’s task force reports on campus antisemitism and anti-Muslim bias" -- https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/29/us/harvard-reports-antise... (May 2025)
Israel is probably the “strongest” nation in figuring out propaganda and mass disinformation campaigns. It is extremely easy to say an entire protest is invalid because of the actions of a few either legitimate or illegitimate protestors.
This is why this tactic is so easily deployed across any protest that seriously threatens states. We saw the US use this tactic in BLM protests of 2020.
Anyway these protests are legitimate despite the events that you’re mentioning happening. “Fed posting” is a thing people are slowly learning to spot.
> “Fed posting” is a thing people are slowly learning to spot.
Are you accusing me? I waited patiently for years building a profile here, for this one moment, to derail this comment, yay!
> Anyway these protests are legitimate despite the events that you’re mentioning happening
And so is the violence I linked to. If you have ANY proof whatsoever that the lecture hall and the Jewish student were actually attacked by Jewish saboteurs - despite the identity of the people involved known - please post it.
Otherwise you are the one doing the shitposting here.
> Something we have evidence of Israel actually doing:
So now you can just tell everybody to ignore any and all events that don't fit your narrative? How convenient!
And by the way, those "protests" would gain a lot of credibility if they were also targeted against Hamas.
Not at all. I’m saying that it’s useless to measure a protest based off of an action of one or two individuals. Which is always just one or two individuals.
I wonder why the last Trump administration didn't do anything when there was a rally where people flew nazi flags, chanted "jews will not replace us" on the grounds at UVA, and murdered a counterprotestor. Why was that antisemitism overlooked?
Because the stated rationale is logical, predictable and matches what the colleges have been doing. This outcome was widely predicted years in advance and would be happening even if Trump had never been born.
Even if were to accept those things as true, stating things which are true is not the only indication of good faith. It is a widely used tactic to use rules only followed by one side against that side. Example (feel free to replace "I" with "my supporters" here): If I believed that anything I did in my interest was acceptable, but you believed that you were bound to work in the interest of the public, then I could claim that you giving your son a government job was corrupt and you would be bound to defend that, whereas if you claimed giving my son-in-law and my daughter government jobs was corrupt I would just ignore you.
