UC Berkeley’s law school dean, Erwin Chemerinsky, and his wife, law professor Catherine Fisk, faced a bizarre scene this week when third-year students invited into their home for a dinner held a disruptive protest and refused to leave. The students accused Fisk of assault after she tried to pull a microphone from the hands of Malak Afaneh, leader of Berkeley Law Students for Justice in Palestine.
Afaneh has been featured by Berkeley on its website discussing how “As a proud Muslim immigrant, a first gen, low income student, and a survivor, I know exactly what it feels like to not have anyone in your corner.” She added:
“As leaders at Berkeley Law, we have the privilege of being in spaces where we can gain access surrounding the U.S. legal system, information that is gatekept and withheld from the very communities that often need it the most.”
It appears that one of those privileged spaces was the Dean’s home. Chemerinsky was warned that protests might be held at his home. Moreover, flyers appeared around campus opposing the dinners.
Chemerinsky discussed this threat in a statement to the school:
“The students responsible for this had the leaders of our student government tell me that if we did not cancel the dinners, they would protest at them. I was sad to hear this, but made clear that we would not be intimidated and that the dinners would go forward for those who wanted to attend. I said that I assumed that any protest would not be disruptive.”
The Berkeley Law Students for Justice in Palestine depicted Dean Chemerinsky in a cartoon with a bloody knife and fork, which were denounced as anti-Semitic and raised images of the ancient blood libel against Jews.
Others attacks Chemerinsky as effectively a Zionist operative.
Once at the dinner, Afaneh and others began their protest. She started by saying “as-salamu alaykum” — or peace and blessings to you — when Fisk took hold of her and tried to take away her microphone.
Fisk teaches civil rights and civil liberties at Berkeley.
An Instagram post by the two student groups said that Fisk was guilty of “violently assaulting” Afaneh. In the video, there is physical contact but it is not violent. It is reminiscent of the recent controversy involving Tulane Professor and former CNN CEO Walter Issacson who was accused of assault in pushing a disruptive protester out of an event.
There are already petitions to seek punishment for the “assault.” One petition states:
“On the last day of Ramadan, UC Berkeley Law Professor Catherine Fisk, and Dean Chemerinsky’s wife, assaulted a Palestinian Muslim hijabi law student that was exercising her First Amendment rights to draw attention to UC complicity in the genocide of the Palestinian people. Fisk and Chemerinsky would rather resort to violently assaulting one of their students than face the truth of their support for genocide.”
The suggestion is that you have a First Amendment right to enter a private residence, stage a loud protest, refuse to leave, and prevent others from associating.
Technically there was physical contact but no police complaint has been filed. Even under torts, there is a notion of molliter manus imposuit or “he gently laid hands upon.” The doctrine is used as a defense for using limited, reasonable force to keep the peace or respond to trespass to land or chattel.
Both Fisk and Chemerinsky can be heard saying that this is their home and that the protest must stop. Evently Afaneh and ten other students left the dinner.
In a statement Wednesday, Chemerinsky wrote that
“The dinner, which was meant to celebrate graduating students, was obviously disrupted and disturbed. . I am enormously sad that we have students who are so rude as to come into my home, in my backyard, and use this social occasion for their political agenda.”
The problem is that these students have been told for years that deplatforming and disrupting events are forms of free speech. This has been an issue of contention with some academics who believe that free speech includes the right to silence others. Student newspapers have declared opposing speech to be outside of the protections of free speech. Academics and deans have said that there is no free speech protection for offensive or “disingenuous” speech. CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek showed how far this trend has gone. When conservative law professor Josh Blackman was stopped from speaking about “the importance of free speech,” Bilek insisted that disrupting the speech on free speech was free speech. (Bilek later cancelled herself and resigned after she made a single analogy to acting like a “slaveholder” as a self-criticism for failing to achieve equity and reparations for black faculty and students).
Berkeley has lost cases in court over its failure to protect free speech.
Many faculty and deans remained quiet for years as conservatives, libertarians, and dissenters were cancelled on campus or deplatformed. It is only recently that some have become openly alarmed over the anti-free speech movement that they have fostered either directly or through their silence.
In this case, the students felt justified to stop a dinner event in a private home. They also showed little fear that they would face any repercussions for their actions.
Ironically, I raise this very hypothetical in my torts classes each year. I also invite my students to my house for dinners. When we get to trespass, I present the hypothetical of what would occur if some of them refused to leave and what my options might be. The Chemerinsky home just became that very hypothetical.
For many of us, the lack of civility and respect by the students is disturbing but hardly surprising. There are many students who feel enabled for years by administrators and faculty at schools like Berkeley.
Dean Chemerinsky can be criticized for fueling this rage by denouncing conservative justices as “partisan hacks” simply because he disagrees with their jurisprudential views. Nevertheless, Chemerinsky has had a long and widely respected career as a scholar and administrator.
Clearly, neither Chemerinsky nor Professor Fisk deserved this disruption or the lack of respect. They refused to yield to the threats over this dinner and I respect them for that. Chemerinsky has tried to navigate the tensions on campus while supporting free speech rights. Chemerinsky and Fisk open their home to hold these dinners and most students clearly value and respect their gracious hospitality.
I also would not fault the Dean for declining to pursue discipline over the incident since this occurred in a private residence. However, I take a harsher view of disruptions of classes and public events. The protesters can demonstrate outside of a room or a hall to express their opposition to a speaker. What they cannot do is prevent others from speaking or hearing opposing views. Those responsible for such disruptions should be suspended or, for repeat offenders, expelled.
Regrettably, the scene that unfolded at the home of Dean Chemerinsky will be viewed by many as a triumph rather than an embarrassment for their cause. Disruption has become the touchstone of protests in higher education. At the same time, schools like UCLA have paid “activists-in-residence” or now bestow degrees in activism.
We now have a culture of disruption that has been consistently fostered by academics and administrators on our campuses. When asked “why the home of a dean?,” these students would likely shrug and answer “why not?”
In that sense, this is the ultimate example of the chickens literally coming home to roost. These students have been enabled for years into believing that such acts of disruption are commendable and that others must yield in the cancellation of events. For weeks, they demanded that these dinners be halted despite other students wanting to attend. In that sense, the appearance in an actual home is alarming, but hardly unexpected in our current environment.
For students such as Afaneh, it is just part of “the privilege of being in spaces” to continue one’s activism.