Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate these Bay Area universities’ code of conduct?

Last week, the presidents of three leading universities were asked a question: Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate their institutions’ code of conduct? Here's what universities in the Bay Area had to say.

At a congressional hearing last week on antisemitism at college campuses, the presidents of three leading universities were asked a question: Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate their institutions’ code of conduct?

Their answers — which centered on the words “it depends on the context” — sparked outrage nationwide. One of those leaders, the University of Pennsylvania’s Liz Magill, stepped down. Another, Harvard University’s Claudine Gay, apologized. The third, Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sally Kornbluth, was backed up by MIT’s board, which came to her defense. One thing is clear: Universities have been left to find their footing amid the Israel-Hamas war — and to balance free speech within the bounds of the First Amendment.

The Bay Area News Group posed the same question to six of the region’s universities and two community colleges: San Francisco State, UC Berkeley, Stanford, Cal State East Bay, Santa Clara University, San Jose State, Peralta Colleges and Cañada College. Cal State East Bay declined to comment for this story, while Cañada and Peralta did not respond to repeated requests to do so. Nine days after the wreckage at last week’s hearing on Capitol Hill, here’s what the institutions had to say:

Q: Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate the university’s code of conduct? If so, what would the penalty be for doing so?

Santa Clara University

“Calling for the genocide of Jews — or any people — is abhorrent and contrary to our fundamental values, and would constitute a violation of the University’s community standards and policies. … We have well-established practices for investigating and adjudicating violations, with a range of consequences up to and including dismissal or expulsion for serious offenses.”

San Francisco State University

Threats of violence are a violation of the student code of conduct. A few weeks ago, the University received a report of violent antisemitic graffiti in a women’s restroom… SF State University Police Department (conducted) an investigation and a threat assessment. … If it should be determined that a student potentially did this, the matter would then be handled by (the Office of Student Conduct).

San Jose State University

“The threat of direct violence against or harassment of any individual or group, or actions that endanger safety or disrupt campus operations, are violations of the CSU Student Conduct Code. … Anyone found in violation of its terms will be subject to procedures and possible disciplinary action as identified in the CSU’s Student Conduct Process. As a public educational institution, our commitment to dialogue, debate and open expression of ideas is fundamental, as is our allegiance to free speech and academic freedom. We must counter hate and hateful rhetoric with the courage to engage and educate, even under the most challenging circumstances. We acknowledge that achieving that balance can be very difficult.”

Stanford

“In the context of the national discourse, Stanford unequivocally condemns calls for the genocide of Jews or any peoples. That statement would clearly violate Stanford’s Fundamental Standard, the code of conduct for all students at the university.”

UC Berkeley

“UC Berkeley would strongly condemn any advocacy for genocide against the Jewish people. And our response to that hate speech would not stop with condemnation. The campus administration can and will discipline hate speech not protected by the First Amendment. Any speech not protected by the First Amendment would, by definition, violate the Student and Faculty Codes of Conduct. The campus would also urge anyone impacted by that hate speech to report any harassment or discrimination they experienced because of that hate speech to our OPHD. We would promise a campus response to their reports, and we would offer them all of the supportive services at our disposal.”

For nearly every university across the country, questions such as these haven’t been easy to answer. The First Amendment protects speech “no matter how offensive its content,” according to the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) guidance document for speech on campus. The only unprotected speech, the document states, is that which “intentionally and effectively provokes a crowd to immediately carry out violent and unlawful action.”

Because private universities are not public entities, they are not bound to uphold the First Amendment the same way public institutions are. But in California, all campuses are required to adhere to the Leonard Law, which has held private universities to the same standards since it was passed in 1992.

“In a democracy, sometimes listening to speech we disagree with, even speech that is very offensive or hateful, is the cost of some of these great freedoms that we have,” said Alex Morey, Director of Campus Rights Advocacy at The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a non-profit focused on free speech. “The alternative is we give over the power to decide which side is right, and which side has the right to speak.”

At the same time, there’s the context of the Israel-Hamas war. After 1,200 Israeli citizens were killed in Hamas’ October 7 massacre, Israel has responded with near-constant airstrikes on the Gaza Strip — leaving over 18,000 dead and nearly two million displaced, according to the UN agency that focuses on Palestine and its refugees, UNRWA.

More than 7,000 miles away, communities in the U.S. are feeling the effects. According to the Anti-Defamation League, there have been over 2,031 anti-semitic incidents in America over the last two months — a 337% jump from the same time period last year. During the same period, the Council on American-Islamic Relations reported a similar number of anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian complaints, at 2,171 as of December 7. And universities have not been spared.

In early November, an Arab Muslim student at Stanford was hit by a car after the driver made eye contact with the student, accelerated, and shouted “f*** you and your people,” according to Stanford’s Department of Public Safety. Last month, three Palestinian college students were shot while walking in Vermont, leaving one paralyzed from the chest down. There have been reports of doxing, threats to students, and hate speech scribbled on campus property throughout colleges and universities across the Bay Area.

There have been three other reports of discriminatory vandalism at San Francisco State. San Jose State said it received “two formal complaints” that had been “addressed” but did not elaborate. Santa Clara University said it had not received any reports, and Stanford did not answer. UC Berkeley said it has had many complaints and is in the process of evaluating which relate to behavior on campus as opposed to conduct on social media.

“Right now, Jewish college students across the country are questioning whether they are safe on their campuses. Can they wear a kippah without being harassed? Can they wear a Star of David, or attend a Shabbat service, without being threatened?” asked Jeremy Russell, a spokesperson for the Jewish Community Relations Council.

Soon after last week’s congressional hearing, investigations into the learning environments of Harvard, UPenn and MIT were promptly launched. Days later, other institutions were added to the list, including Stanford. Despite that many pro-Palestine, Arab and Muslim students across the region don’t feel protected by their universities, said Zahra Billoo, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ San Francisco Bay Area office.

“Pro-Palestine speech is being labeled as anti-semitic,” said Billoo. “Students should be able to chant end the occupation, or ceasefire now, without being accused of things that they didn’t say. But they don’t have that freedom, and yet, these universities are getting punished as if they do.”

UPenn lost a $100 million donation from a wealthy donor, according to recent reporting by Axios. A prominent rabbi tapped to lead Harvard’s antisemitism advisory group resigned, stating on X — formerly Twitter — that “belittling or denying the Jewish experience, including unspeakable atrocities, is a vast and continuing catastrophe.” After the congressional hearing, the House of Representatives passed a resolution denouncing the testimony of the Harvard, MIT and UPenn presidents, for their “failure to clearly state that calls for the genocide of Jews constitute harassment and violate their institutions’ code of conduct.”

“There was a missed opportunity for the presidents to do two things: to really denounce anti-semitism, and denounce anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hate on campus,” said Kristen Shahverdian, the senior manager of free expression and education at nonprofit PEN America. “And also, to really articulate and try to help the public who is watching get a better understanding of how complicated these are, and how context does matter.”