SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
due process
Pro-Palestine Students, Faculty Sue UC Santa Cruz Over 'Unconstitutional' Ban
The lawsuit was filed "to vindicate the fundamental democratic and constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly, and due process against overreach by university authorities," the text said.
Sep 09, 2024
Students and staff at the University of California, Santa Cruz launched a lawsuit against the school on Monday for barring them from campus without due process after they were arrested at a pro-Palestinian protest in the spring.
The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundation of Northern California, the Center for Protest Law & Litigation, and civil rights attorney Thomas Seabaugh, is demanding that the University "cease summarily banishing" people who exerciser their First Amendment rights as the new academic year beings.
"The bans were incredibly punitive and profoundly unfair," Rachel Lederman, senior counsel with the Center for Protest Law & Litigation, said in a statement. "They went into effect on the spot, instantly cutting students and faculty off from classes, jobs, and other school resources, such as meal plans and healthcare. On-campus residents were rendered homeless. Academic performance suffered."
"It's time to hold UCSC accountable for its illegal use of Section 626.4 campus bans against students and faculty as a tool of censorship."
One impacted student was Elio Ellutzi, a plaintiff and undergraduate who was not only made homeless and cut off from their campus job, they were forced to the miss a pre-scheduled doctor's appointment and delay treatment until the fall.
"It was terrible to miss that appointment and be cut off from my home, the library, and my notes," Ellutzi said. "This all happened during final exams and, even though I had been on the honor roll for the last two quarters, I struggled to complete my coursework and my grades really suffered."
Fellow plaintiff and UCSC undergraduate Laaila Irshad also suffered academically.
"I was a resident assistant living and working in campus housing, so the ban was devastating," Laaila said. "I failed my school courses as I could not access my computer, attend classes, or complete assignments."
The bans were issued to more than 100 students and faculty members who were arrested on the night of May 30, when the university called in more than 100 police officers to clear the school's Palestine solidarity encampment.
Everyone arrested that night was banned from campus under section 626.4 of California's Penal Code, which allows a university to withdraw its consent for an individual's presence on campus for up to two weeks. However, in order for a university to make use of the code, it must first either hold a hearing or decide that an individual poses "a substantial and material threat." Neither criteria were met in the case of those arrested in May, in violation of both state and federal law.
Chessie Thacher, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said the bans were "unconstitutional and overbroad, depriving students and faculty of their due process rights."
The lawsuit explained further:
The campus police, acting under defendants' direction, handed out identical one-page Section 626.4 notices to arrestees. The officers handed out so many of these form notices en masse that they eventually ran out of paper and resorted to verbally informing students and faculty of the ban. Some people were also purportedly banned without getting either written or verbal notice. No hearing or opportunity to be heard was provided before any of these bans went into effect. No individualized findings were made about how, post-arrest, "the continued presence" on campus of each summarily banned person presented "a substantial and material threat of significant injury to persons or property."
The notices were also handed out after an arrest experience that was harrowing in and of itself, according to first-hand testimony from plaintiffs.
Christine Hong, a professor of critical race and ethnic studies, said she had gone to the encampment on May 30 to support her students:
When I arrived, I saw a line of officers advancing in militarized formation, moving forward, then stopping, and waiting before continuing their slow march down to the base of campus until they were just two to three feet in front of the line of students. From that point forward, they repeatedly attacked us in waves of violence. The police used their batons to force us so tightly into each other that some protesters were dry heaving from the batons being thrust violently into their organs. When students tried to move the batons away from their stomachs, they were ordered to stay still and bear the pain. The person next to me was later hospitalized for their injuries. In what appeared to be their efforts to pluck off protesters for arrest, officers in full riot gear were unrestrained in their violence, including grabbing people by the neck. One person sustained injuries so severe that they suffered neurological damage and now walks using a cane.
Once arrested, both Hong and Irshad described spending time in police vans with their hands tightly zip-tied and no chance to access facilities.
Irshad recalled:
I was arrested at 6:00 am, while other protesters remained on-site into the morning, still without basic necessities. We were then handcuffed tightly with zip ties and loaded into vans, where static radio blared at deafening volumes. When we pleaded for relief, the volume was increased, and when I asked to use the restroom, I was met with scorn and laughter. It was a shock to be treated so cruelly simply for exercising my right to protest.
The lawsuit stated that it was filed "to vindicate the fundamental democratic and constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly, and due process against overreach by university authorities."
"It's time to hold UCSC accountable for its illegal use of Section 626.4 campus bans against students and faculty as a tool of censorship," Seabaugh said in a statement. "Our clients did not engage in conduct that posed a threat of significant injury to anyone or anything. Banning them on the spot was not just heavy-handed, it was unconstitutional and a violation of basic democratic rights and academic freedoms. We're suing to ensure that in the coming school year, UCSC officials comply with the law and respect the constitutional limits on their power to ban students and faculty from campus."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Groups Warn Gang Crackdown in El Salvador Has Led to Human Rights Crisis
"Reducing gang violence by replacing it with state violence cannot be a success," said one Amnesty International official.
Mar 27, 2024
Two years after Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele declared a "state of exception" that was originally adopted for a 30-day period in response for a spate of apparent gang killings, the government is boasting that its policies have driven down the homicide rate by 70%—but international rights defenders on Wednesday warned the crackdown has plunged the country into a human rights crisis.
Amnesty International said that according to local victims' movements and human rights groups, El Salvador's former murder rate has been replaced by 327 cases of forced disappearances since March 2022, as well as 78,000 arbitrary detentions as police have raided neighborhoods, particularly in low-income areas.
"A total of approximately 102,000 people [are] now deprived of their freedom in the country—a situation of prison overcrowding of approximately 148% percent and at least 235 deaths in state custody," said Amnesty.
Bukele adopted the state of emergency after El Salvador reported its deadliest peak in apparent gang violence in recent history, with gangs blamed for 92 people's deaths over three days in March 2022.
Under the emergency order, authorities have suspended the right to privacy in communications, to be informed of the reason for one's arrest, and to be taken before a judge within 72 hours of an arrest. A report by Human Rights Watch in December 2022 also warned of "torture, or other cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment against people accused of crimes." Officers told people during arrests only that they were following "orders from the president," and in some cases, told people they were being taken to a police station for "questioning" when they were actually under arrest.
"The insistence of Nayib Bukele's government on maintaining the state of emergency, the adoption of disproportionate measures, and the denial, minimization, and concealment of reported serious human rights violations reflect the government's unwillingness to fulfill its duty to respect and promote human rights in the country," Ana Piquer, Amnesty International's Americas director, said Wednesday. "It also demonstrates its inability to design comprehensive long-term measures to address the root causes of violence and criminality without forcing the population to choose between security and freedom."
Amnesty's statement came a day after Justice and Security Minister Gustavo Villatoro said Bukele's government plans to continue its strategy to "eradicate this endemic evil."
"This war against these terrorists will continue," said Villatoro in a televised address.
Despite outcry from domestic and international human rights groups, Bukele won his reelection campaign in a landslide last month. El Faro reported that Bukele's government had violated some election rules including airing ads within three days of the election and campaigning on Election Day. Some poll workers also wore clothes identifying them as supporters of Bukele's Nueva Ideas party, and police allegedly blocked journalists from working near polling locations, prompting accusations of intimidation and harassment by the Association of Journalists of El Salvador.
The Due Process of Law Foundation released a report Tuesday warning that Bukele's government could be guilty of crimes against humanity as it continues its crackdown.
"Well over 76,000 people, including minors, have been detained under the state of exception, accused of having ties to gangs," wrote the group. "Many or most of these detentions appear to be occurring without any reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person may have committed a crime. Mere physical appearance—including having tattoos—seems to be enough to put people at risk of arrest, with young men from poor districts a particular target. Arrests of this nature are in themselves discriminatory, and may well qualify as arbitrary. According to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, under customary
international law, 'The legal basis justifying... detention must be accessible, understandable, nonretroactive, and applied in a consistent and predictable way.'"
Amnesty noted on Wednesday that human rights defenders and dissidents also face "increased risk" under the state of emergency, "as they are criminalized." As Common Dreams reported this week, five water defenders are scheduled to stand trial on April 3 for allegedly killing a military informant, an accusation for which the government has produced no proof.
"In the absence of any kind of evaluation and checks and balances within the country, and with only a timid response from the international community, the false illusion has been created that President Bukele has found the magic formula to solve the very complex problems of violence and criminality in a seemingly simple way. But reducing gang violence by replacing it with state violence cannot be a success," said Piquer. "The authorities in El Salvador must focus the state response on comprehensive policies that respect human rights and seek long-term solutions."
"The international community," she added, "must respond in a robust, articulate and forceful manner, condemning any model of public security that is based on human rights violations."
Keep ReadingShow Less
University of Illinois Slammed with Censure Over Salaita Firing
Attorneys for Professor Steven Salaita called the move by leading academic group 'a serious blemish on the university’s record'
Jun 14, 2015
In a decision that may have long-lasting repercussions for the university's reputation, a leading university group on Saturday voted to censure the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) for firing Professor Steven Salaita after he made comments critical of Israel's attack on Gaza last summer.
The university rescinded Salaita's tenured faculty appointment at the school's American Indian studies program after he issued a series of Tweets condemning those who defended Israel's military actions against Palestinians in Gaza.
"If it's 'antisemitic' to deplore colonization, land theft, and child murder, then what choice does any person of conscience have?" was among the comments made last July.
Groups accusing the university of having a pro-Israel bias condemned the school board's dismissal of Salaita.
After its own internal investigation, at the annual meeting on Saturday, the American Association of University Professors elected to censure the institution on the grounds that the dismissal "violated Professor Salaita's academic freedom and cast a pall of uncertainty over the degree to which academic freedom is understood and respected at UIUC."
The group explains that such a censure "informs the academic community that the administration of an institution has not adhered to generally recognized principles of academic freedom and tenure. "
The AAUP currently has 56 institutions on its censure list.
In January, Salaita filed a lawsuit against the school, charging that it violated his First Amendment rights. According to the Associated Press, "The censure vote came one day after a judge ordered the university to turn over thousands of pages of documents sought by Salaita."
Following the decision, Salaita's attorneys issued a statement calling the censure "a serious blemish on the university's record."
The statement continued:
The association censured UIUC not only for its summary dismissal of Professor Salaita in violation of academic freedom, due process, and shared governance, but also for its continued refusal to rectify its actions. The university's stubbornness continues in spite of academic boycotts, department votes of no confidence in the UIUC administration, student walk-outs, tens of thousands of petition signatures, a federal lawsuit, and the AAUP's reprimand, suggesting that the UIUC administration is more beholden to donors than it is to due process, academic freedom, and the First Amendment."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular