by Ben Shapiro
On May 29, 2002, syndicated columnist and talk show host Dennis Prager spoke about Israel to a crowd of about two hundred members of the UCLA community. In his speech, he explained why Israel has a right to defend itself against Palestinian terror and discussed the history of the State of Israel. Seidler-Feller, a vocal critic of Prager, introduced him to the crowd. After Prager’s speech, Seidler-Feller strode to a microphone and challenged Prager’s honesty and his arguments, stating to Prager that he was “exaggerating the case” for Israel.61
But Seidler-Feller wasn’t done yet. He wrote a letter to the editor in the Daily Bruin, explaining his position. “[T]he Palestinians are still struggling to gain full freedom and currently live under the dual oppression of foreign dominance (the Israelis) and the corrupt and undemocratic rule of Arafat. Those of us in the Jewish/Israeli peace movement have said for years that it is essential to recognize that Palestine is home to the Palestinians.”62 This man is supposed to be a guide for Jewish students at UCLA. What a crock.
Another professor at UCLA, Gabriel Piterberg, also hates Israel, calling on Israel to capitulate to every Palestinian demand, even if the Palestinians continue terror attacks against Israeli civilians. He calls Israel’s control over the West Bank “apartheid,” and suggests a “bi-national state” as the solution to the conflict.63 On his office door is a poster reading “End the Occupation.” “It’s mind-boggling,” he says of Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Piterberg says he is “ashamed to be an Israeli citizen.”64 Is it surprising that UCLA hired Piterberg directly from Israel to come brainwash their students?
The Tikkun Community is a Jewish group led by Michael Lerner, a far-left anti-Israel propagandist. As the “About Us” section of the Tikkun Web site brags, “Tikkun has become particularly controversial for its support of the rights of Palestinians.”65 The board of the “Community” included (as of October 2003) Professor Susannah Heschel of Dartmouth College, Professor Cornel West of Princeton University (a noted “black supremacist”), Professor Doug Allen of the University of Maine, Professor Chet Bowers of the University of Oregon, Professor Tony Campolo of Eastern College, Professor Harvey Cox of Harvard University, Professor Gordon Fellman of Brandeis University, Professor Peter Gabel of the New College of California, Professor Robert Gottlieb of Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Professor Richard Lowery of Phillips Theological Seminary, Professor Ian Lustick of the University of Pennsylvania, Professor Shaul Magid of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, Professor Svi Shapiro of the University of North Carolina in Greensboro, Professor Lawrence Simon of Brandeis University, Professor Paul Wapner of American University, and Professor Robin West of Georgetown University.66
Several of the aforementioned professors are considered Jewish leaders on campus—as members of the Tikkun Community, they are closer to Palestinian sympathizers. As are most other Jewish leaders on campus.
MOBILIZING AGAINST ISRAEL
The anti-Israel sentiment on campus grows stronger year by year with virtually no opposition. “Zionism” has become a dirty word on campus. Polls show that while the American public tends to heavily sympathize with the Israelis over the Palestinians (48 percent to 15 percent in a CBS News poll in April 200267 ), college students favor Israel by only 35 percent to 22 percent, with 6 percent sympathizing with both sides.68
In private colleges and Northeastern colleges, students actually back the Palestinians. At private colleges, 34 percent back the Palestinians while 26 percent back the Israelis; in the Northeast, 36 percent back the Palestinians while 23 percent back the Israelis.69
On May 14, 2002, long-time anti-Israel, anti-American columnist Robert Fisk wrote a piece entitled “Why does John Malkovich want to kill me?” In the piece, Fisk quoted Professor Judea Pearl of UCLA, who wrote that Fisk was a “hate peddler.” Naturally, this piqued my interest—a UCLA professor supporting Israel? What a rarity!
So I e-mailed Professor Pearl, asking if I could possibly interview him in one of my columns. He was hesitant to give an interview, because he was “having a problem now trying to avoid the general media,” he said, but he wanted to sleep on the proposal. “But before I start my sleep,” he wrote, “let me commend you on your courage to present the Israeli point of view on campus. I almost gave up hope of finding courageous students in UCLA, especially in the political science department.”
I had no idea then, but Professor Pearl was the father of Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter brutally murdered by Islamic fanatics in Pakistan. After proclaiming his Jewish identity and his family connection to Israel, Daniel Pearl’s throat was slit by the terrorists.
How sad that Jewish identity and sympathy for Israel evoke hatred and intimidation not merely in Pakistan, but on US college campuses as well.
11
THE BRUIN, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY
On May 23, 2002, after over a year writing opinion columns for the UCLA Daily Bruin, I was fired. Technically, I was suspended from the student newspaper for two quarters at the least, and possibly more if I didn’t “feel remorse,”1 according to my editor. My crime? Speaking out publicly against the pro-Muslim bias of the Daily Bruin editorial staff.
I first applied for an unpaid position as a Daily Bruin opinion columnist in December 2000, as a freshman. To my surprise, I was accepted. As the “token conservative,” I immediately became the most controversial opinion columnist in the paper.
Everything was sailing along smoothly. I was free to write about any topic I wanted, except for the sacred cow of Political Correctness—the extremism of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) and Al-Talib, the Muslim student newspaper.
During my tenure at the Bruin, I had three different viewpoint editors. Two of them refused to let me write anything quoting MSA and Al-Talib documents. “We’ll have to confirm your quotes with the MSA and Al-Talib,” they said, as though I had fabricated direct quotations. Strangely, they never even checked with those organizations.
Twice I actually wrote articles about the MSA and Al-Talib, which were rejected. In all, I submitted thirty-two articles for publication while working for the Bruin; thirty were printed. The only two the Bruin wouldn’t publish discussed the extremist Muslim sect on campus.
In May 2002, the second rejection threw me into direct conflict with the Daily Bruin. The Bruin had rejected a similar article earlier. They had rejected the idea of attacking the MSA and Al-Talib numerous times. But this time the viewpoint editor, Sarah,2 agreed to print the column because it was timely—the week of my submission was the official MSA “Anti-Zionism Week” (which they renamed “Islamic Awareness Week” that year). She even agreed to have my article approved by the MSA and Al-Talib. “Have a backup column ready to go,” she wrote, “in case we don’t get confirmation of positions from the groups by Monday.”
Time passed. I revised, restructured, and reorganized the column, but the basic message of the column remained the same—the Muslim student groups on campus were supporting terrorism. The viewpoint editor approved the article for printing. Then it happened. On May 14, at 1:55 P.M., I received an e-mail from an assistant viewpoint editor, John.3 “Ben,” he stated, “Ted4 [the editor in chief ] saw your column in a budget meeting and deciding [sic] not to run it. He thinks that it doesn’t add anything to the debate and that we need fresh opinions on this debate. I’m sorry, but I can’t do anything about it.”
I wrote back to John, telling him that I could take a “different, less hostile tack.” “It isn’t so much that your article was too hostile per se,” he answered, “but mainly that the opinion has been expressed before in a very similar way. . . . we do NOT need another column about who is right and who is wrong and who hates whom.”5
That did it. My column didn’t “add anything to the debate,” they said. The Bruin did “NOT need another column about who is right and who is wrong and who hates whom.” In my time at UCLA, I had seen columns comparing Ariel Sharon to Adolf Eichmann; columns justifying suicide bombings; editorials rippin
g Israel; news articles openly issuing calls to “Free Palestine.” But the Bruin could not bear to print a column merely quoting the Muslim student media on UCLA campus.
So I called up KABC talk show host Larry Elder. At Larry’s request, I had appeared on his show in November 2001 to discuss an article I wrote in the Daily Bruin, so we knew each other. He generously offered to interview me on the air on Monday, May 20, 2002.
On air, I said that there seemed to be a pattern of UCLA’s catering to its Muslim population. I connected the Daily Bruin’s policy with UCLA’s overall pro-Muslim stance. I discussed the use of mandatory student fees for student media; part of tuition at UCLA includes a required payment to the student media. For example, my tuition money pays for Nommo, the black magazine on campus, despite the fact that I disagree with their viewpoint. Callers were outraged at both the Daily Bruin’s censorship and UCLA’s overtly pro-Muslim policies.
As soon as I entered the Bruin office on Tuesday afternoon, I knew there would be a heavy price to pay for the interview. One of the advisors for the Bruin approached me and asked if I had spoken to the editor-in-chief yet. “No,” I answered. “He’s not happy with you,” the advisor responded.
On Wednesday, I received a message on my cell-phone from Sarah, the viewpoint editor, saying that she wanted to meet with me. I called her back at the office and told her I would meet her on Thursday.
Thursday, May 23, 2002: The showdown. I walked into the office, where the viewpoint editor immediately took me aside. She then proceeded to read me the riot act, despite the fact that she had been willing to run the article originally.
“I think what you did was distasteful,” she snapped. “You should have come to us first if you had a problem.”
“I don’t have a problem with you,” I explained. “You were willing to print my article. My problem is with the Ted [the editor-in-chief ], and with Katy6 [the former editor-in-chief ]. It was the editor-in-chief who nixed my article, not you. And I did come to the Bruin first—I’ve asked you guys about an article on this topic at least four or five times.”
“Well,” she said, “I still find what you did extremely distasteful.”
Sarah told me that I had broken several opinion columnist policies. First, I had taken an “outside interview” with Larry without the Daily Bruin’s consent. Second, she stated, I had not clearly identified myself as a “viewpoint columnist,” an allegation that was untrue, since Larry repeatedly identified me as a columnist, and columnists by definition are not reporters. Third, I had failed to “seek editorial advice” from my editor before “interacting with the public about a sensitive or otherwise controversial issue.”7
The Daily Bruin had set these policies in place in January 2002, four months before. Viewpoint columnists were not required to sign the policy, and were not legally bound by it.
“You are hereby suspended from the Bruin,” she continued, “for a period of at least two quarters. You can reapply in Winter 2003.”
After I left the office, I called Les Siegel, Larry’s producer, to tell him about the firing. He again agreed to give me time on his show to discuss the firing: 5:00 P.M. the next day. And Les also got Sarah to join us. Ted, the editor-in-chief, could not be bothered with appearing on LA’s longest-running afternoon talk show to discuss his decision—instead, he sent the viewpoint editor as a proxy.
As soon as the interview began, it became clear that the Daily Bruin had not fired me for breaking columnist policy, but for revealing their censorship.
“Sarah, this has nothing to do with what Mr. Shapiro said? In other words, if he had come on the show and said ‘I think the Daily Bruin is a great newspaper,’ he still would have been suspended?” Larry inquired of the viewpoint editor.
“Yes, he would have been,” Sarah answered. “It had nothing to do with his content.”
“If he had said ‘I am here; I am not representing the school although I am a columnist. I am not representing the newspaper although I am a columnist.’ would he have been home free?” Larry pressed.
“Yes,” she stated.
Later in the interview, Larry found the hole in Sarah’s argument: I had clearly identified myself as a Daily Bruin columnist in the previous interview.
“Sarah,” Larry said to her, “by definition, a columnist does not represent the views of the newspaper. I’ve had a lot of people on my show, from the LA Times, for example, and they’ve not said, ‘Oh, by the way, I’m not representing the newspaper.’ I know you’re not, you’re a columnist!”
“Right,” she admitted. “But Larry, you’d be totally surprised by how many people don’t understand that distinction.”
“Well, that’s their problem, not yours, not Ben’s!”
She floundered about for an answer, first suggesting that it was “an issue of credibility.” “But,” I interjected, “the Bruin isn’t legally liable for anything I say.”
“Sarah,” Larry added, “with respect, I write for Jewish World Review, I write for WorldNetDaily.com. . . . [and I can tell you that] by definition, a columnist is giving his or her opinion.”
So I wasn’t fired because I misrepresented myself as a Daily Bruin representative. Why was I fired? For speaking out. Larry hit the nail directly on the head during the interview.
“Sarah,” Larry asked, “[Ben has] been suspended for ‘at least two quarters.’ Why ‘at least,’ as opposed to two quarters, one quarter, three quarters?”
“That was a decision made by the editor-in-chief,” she replied.
“Meaning what? When is he out of penance? What does he have to do in order to get back?”
“He can reapply in January. And he’ll just need to reassure us that we’ll be notified before he speaks with outside media.”
“So the punishment will be determined based on his degree of remorse?”
“Um, you can phrase it that way if you like.”8
One week later, I began writing a nationally syndicated column with Creators Syndicate. Creators graciously offered the Daily Bruin the opportunity to print my columns for free—the Bruin refused. They still refuse to print my columns. That’s how free speech works at college newspapers.
THE DAILY BRUIN MORAL CODE
I wasn’t exactly surprised when the Daily Bruin editorial staff and I ended up on opposites sides of a fight. After all, this was an editorial board somewhere to the left of Karl Marx. Pravda can’t hold a candle to the Bruin.
The Daily Bruin was the first student newspaper in the country to endorse divestment from Israel. After comparing Israel to South Africa and Burma, the editorial board wrote: “in the case of Israel, there should be no ambiguity about the UC’s responsibility; it needs to divest immediately.”9
The editors also defended UC Berkeley’s atrocious English class, “The Poetics of Palestinian Resistance.” After UC President Richard Atkinson spoke out against the course, the Bruin editorial board ripped into him. “Neither the regents nor the president have any business involving themselves in determining individual course descriptions,” they stated. “The foundation of a university is to promote new insight, even if it’s on sensitive subjects. Unless students and professors are allowed to challenge popular beliefs and introduce new knowledge, the concept of academics itself is lost.”10
The Bruin is absolutely opposed to the War on Terror. “President Bush is talking about marching us straight into a war with Iraq, and possibly the entire Middle East, but our generation remains silent,” write the editors. Puffed up with self-importance, they continue: “Is a military campaign with ambiguous goals and uncertain motives worth sacrificing our peers and loved ones? Unless generation Y can answer with a resounding yes, the war on terror should go no further.”11
They love to play the race card as well. When 2002-2003 UCLA Under-graduate Student Association Council President David Dahle nominated four students for the board, the Bruin immediately targeted their skin color. “The Undergraduate Students Association Council refused to appoint
four white students nominated by President David Dahle to the judicial board on the grounds of a lack of diversity. They were right to do so. Dahle was wrong in not considering people of different ethnicities or backgrounds.”12
The editorial staff tells students to proselytize for affirmative action. “[S]tudents can also educate communities about the ways affirmative action can benefit them—regardless of their race, gender or ethnicity. Through outreach and direct action, students can transform the consciousness of their communities and educate others of the need for affirmative action.”13
And what of the Bruin’s opinion of UC Regent Ward Connerly’s Racial Privacy Initiative, which would prevent applicants from having to state their race? “[RPI] will only erase any record of society’s racially-motivated inequality. Minorities will keep bumping their heads on the glass ceiling, continue to make up 60 percent of inmates on death row, and, more directly affecting the UC, continue to have small representation on competitive campuses.”14 Should death row inmates be selected on the basis of diversity? The Bruin thinks so.
APPLYING FOR CAMPUS SLUT
Midway through 2001, the Daily Bruin editors needed something to spice up the paper. As in the Spice Channel. They added a “sex column.” This wasn’t out of the realm of normality for the editors who compared a Westwood sex shop with a Christian book store.15 Here are some of the low-lights from the UCLA “sexpert” column:
• From an article entitled “Mastering art of sexspeak heightens passion in bed”: “make sure it’s your partner’s name you’re saying as you near climax. . . . tell us how much you love different parts of our bodies or how good we look naked. . . . Positive reinforcement will not only boost our self-confidence but also result in mutual, take-charge sex.”16