Comments
A STUDENT'S VIEW - UCLA banned Students for Justice in Palestine after members allegedly targeted the home of a Jewish UC Regent with intimidation tactics that shocked many across California.
Yet today, the organization is still influencing student government elections on campus.
That raises a disturbing question: What does a university ban actually mean if the same activist network continues operating politically with little real consequence?
According to reports, UCLA’s unrecognized SJP chapter contacted student government candidates and pushed them to complete political questionnaires in exchange for endorsements ahead of upcoming campus elections. While the organization is no longer officially recognized by UCLA, election rules reportedly still allow it to participate as an “external organization.”
In other words, the group may have lost official status but not its power.
That should alarm every student, parent, donor, and university leader who believes disciplinary action is supposed to matter.
UCLA indefinitely banned SJP in March 2025 after members reportedly demonstrated outside the home of UC Regent Jay Sures, who is Jewish. Protesters allegedly left red handprints on his garage door while accusing him of having “blood on his hands” over the Israel-Hamas war.
The imagery was not merely political theater.
To many Jewish students and faculty, it was intimidation designed to send a chilling message: support Israel publicly and you may become a target personally.
Now, despite the ban, the same movement continues exerting pressure inside campus politics.
Daniel Gold, executive director of UCLA Hillel, condemned the situation and warned that student government leadership should not be shaped by organizations barred from campus for misconduct.
He is right.
Because this issue is no longer just about one activist group.
It is about whether universities are willing to enforce standards consistently when antisemitism enters the conversation.
Across America, elite universities have repeatedly promised to protect Jewish students while simultaneously tolerating increasingly hostile campus climates. Administrators issue statements about inclusion and safety, yet too often appear hesitant to confront radical activism when it crosses the line from protest into intimidation.
At UCLA, that contradiction is becoming impossible to ignore.
Last month, UCLA’s student government condemned an appearance by former Israeli hostage Omer Shem Tov, accusing organizers of promoting “selective narratives” and disregarding Palestinian suffering.
But Shem Tov was not a politician.
He was not a military official.
He was a kidnapping survivor.
For many Jewish students, the condemnation reflected something far deeper than political disagreement. It reinforced the growing perception that Jewish pain is treated differently on campus questioned, minimized, or filtered through ideological standards that would never be tolerated against other minority groups.
Even UC Regent Jay Sures publicly blasted the student government’s behavior, reportedly calling members “shortsighted, antisemitic or both.”
And many Americans watching this unfold are asking the same question:
How did universities become environments where Jewish students increasingly feel forced to defend not only their beliefs, but their basic right to safety and dignity?
The larger scandal here is institutional weakness.
If a university bans an organization for misconduct, but the same organization can still organize politically, pressure candidates, and shape elections through loopholes, then the punishment becomes little more than symbolic theater.
A suspension without enforcement is not accountability.
It is public relations.
And a university that bans intimidation while tolerating its political aftermath is not enforcing standards — it is outsourcing authority to fear.
Universities cannot claim to fight antisemitism while allowing banned activist networks to continue operating through technicalities and intimidation.
If UCLA cannot enforce its own disciplinary decisions consistently, then it is sending a devastating message to Jewish students:
Rules apply selectively.
Intimidation works.
And accountability depends entirely on politics.
(Shoshannah Kalaydjian is a young Jewish student who writes about education, identity, and the challenges facing the next generation. Growing up in today’s climate, she has witnessed firsthand how rising antisemitism affects young people in classrooms and on college campuses. She is committed to sharing the perspectives of Jewish youth, amplifying student voices, and encouraging leaders to create safer, more inclusive environments for all students.)
