Chapman’s free speech policy continues to divide students and administration

If a student organization writes “Fuck Israel” along with a picture of a burning Israeli flag on the steps of the library, is it considered free speech, hate speech, both or neither?

At Chapman, it’s complicated. These questions have been heavily debated by Chapman students since its occurrence on Sept. 19, where Students in Justice for Palestine (SJP), wrote in chalk, phrases such as “Chapman Kills,” “Fuck Israel” and “Struppa Supports Genocide” in the piazza.

Photos by Ashley Kuckler

The debate flared up most recently when students SJP started with chalk and wrote these phrases as a form of protest in direct response to Chapman’s refusal to divest from companies economically supporting Israel earlier this month. 

One place where SJP wrote these phrases was in front of the Hillel tent, a Jewish community organization tabling across from SJP, participating in their weekly bagel distribution event. 

“We were looking down right in front of the tent and they wrote, ‘Hillel Supports Genocide’ and ‘Free Palestine’ with an upside-down red triangle,” said Ari DeLeon, a Spanish major, Jewish sophomore, standing near the tent.  

Photo Courtesy of Ari DeLeon

“(Hillel) is not anything political. This is a Jewish organization on campus hosting a weekly event that was directly targeted,” said DeLeon.  

The Jewish Anti-Zionist (JAZ) Club, a branch of SJP started by three Jewish SJP members, argues otherwise.

“They are a Zionist organization…(Hillel funds) birthright trips to Israel,” said a representative of JAZ, who wished to remain anonymous. 

Upon Jerry Price’s, Chapman’s vice president for student affairs and dean of students, arrival to the protest, he stated that the chalkings were in alignment with free speech guidelines, and would be removed that night per their chalking policy.

“The First Amendment protects hate speech. So whether something constitutes hate speech is not relevant from a policy standpoint,” said Price, in response to the chalkings. 

“(A violation) has to be something that would essentially violate the law. It has to be a threat. It has to be something that is harassment of a specific person with the intent to cause harm to that person,” said Price. 

The concern from Jewish students came from the use of the upside-down red triangles.

“(SJP was) using red triangles. This is a symbol that has been specifically used to target and incite violence against Jewish people,” said DeLeon.

JAZ explains that although the symbol can hold different meanings to Jewish groups, it can be used in a larger context.

“It is generally understood as a symbol of resistance and protest,” said the JAZ co-president. “Historically, such as in the Holocaust, the red triangle was used to mark political prisoners, so it became a symbol against fascism.”

Despite Price’s explanation of Chapman’s posting policy to the affected students, many Jewish students felt targeted and frustrated as the messages were directly aimed at Hillel.

“We have a very firm line between freedom of speech and anti-semitism… In the context of American politics, I'm all for freedom of speech, but when we have upside-down red triangles drawn on our campus, I just don't see how that is permissible under policy,” said DeLeon.

The students upset with the chalking on campus aren’t the only ones frustrated with Chapman’s Free Speech Policy. JAZ is also critical of Chapman policies targeting SJP, which they believe aim to stifle free speech.

It follows an amendment to Chapman’s original free speech policy, one of banning encampments.

“When we were in negotiations (with Chapman), part of the promise was that there would be no change in policy regarding encampments, because (encampments) are a form of protest, and thus free speech,” said the JAZ co-president. 

Price responded to this criticism: “If you would consider an encampment a free speech thing, then yes, it does restrict that.”

Additionally, since the banning of encampments, Chapman has also implemented the banning of amplified sound, following a SJP walk-out earlier this semester.

“The removal of amplified sound eliminates free speech because we can’t elevate our voices. Their whole mission is to get rid of the protests on campus,” said the JAZ co-president. “We need our voices to be heard, so the policy is doing its best job to hinder (protests).” 

Price confirmed the restrictions, explaining that last year’s protests were disturbing classroom instruction.

“We did put restrictions on amplified sound, only that we need advanced notice, but probably wouldn't get permission during classes,” said Price. “We learned some things from last spring. We got reports of classes feeling like they were disrupted. Nothing that would restrict a group from gathering, marching around campus, or chanting.”

Chapman University policy defines amplified sound as “generating noise with speakers or subwoofers that disrupts the community.”

“I understand they're trying to push it for the purpose of protecting classrooms, but it's happening after our protests,” said the JAZ co-president. 

On the Chapman “Free Expression” site, Chapman takes a more neutral stance, encouraging free speech on campus to encourage discussion.

“Free expression is an essential asset to students’ education, and I encourage students upset by the speech of others to focus their energies on responding to what is said, rather than trying to prevent others from saying it,” said Price. “If administrators censor campus expression, we deprive you of these choices.”