The student government voted in private, approving legislature to boycott Israel academically and fiscally; LSA member discusses campus administration response
By RIVERS STOUT— campus@theaggie.org
On Feb. 28, the Law Student Association (LSA) at King Hall voted on Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) legislature written by the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) at UC Davis. They voted on the legislation without public notice in order to protect voters from future discrimination, and the constitutional amendment passed. The amendment seeks to boycott Israel in primarily two ways: academically and fiscally.
“[The] LSA will not approve the use of student funds for businesses listed on the BDS list as prioritized by the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights,” the bill states.
Another segment of the bill clarifies the boycotts that the amendment details.
“[The] LSA will not approve funding requests for events with speakers who represent the Israeli government, regardless of their nationality, religion, ethnic origin or voluntarily represent Israeli academic institutions that are complicit in occupation and genocide, including Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Tel Aviv University, Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Haifa University. This constitutes the UC Davis School of Law Priority Academic Boycott List (Academic Priority List),” the bill states.
Shasun Sulur, a second-year graduate student in the UC Davis School of Law and member of the NLG and the external vice president of the LSA, expanded upon the academic boycott.
“Not only did it state that we shouldn’t be spending money on corporations [on the BDS list], but also that we shouldn’t spend money to sponsor speakers that voluntarily work with Israeli academic institutions that perpetuate the genocide,” Sulur said. “So, for speakers that are pro-Zionism or pro-genocide, we should not be spending out student fees to support them. This doesn’t mean that student groups can’t still invite these speakers to campus — that these events can’t happen — but we as a collective should not be spending money to bring these speakers to campus.”
Sulur stated that the LSA controls between $30,000 to $50,000 in a given year, according to the treasurer’s finances. The amount that went to companies, which the LSA will now boycott, is unknown.
“What we saw last year in response to student protests and student voices against the genocide in Palestine/Gaza was retribution from many law firms out there [by] revoking offers and taking away student’s financial freedoms through revoking job offers,” Sulur said.
The LSA will also boycott law firms which they believe have expressed refusal to hire those who have advocated for Palestine. Sulur said he believes that the UC Davis School of Law has been selectively enforcing rules when it comes to the NLG and its activism for Palestine.
“We have experienced some hostility towards our organizing around divestment in support of Palestinians,” Sulur said. “In holding certain events, we’ve been told after the event has happened that we’ve been in violation of certain policies, even though other student groups have not been held accountable to those same policies for holding similar events. We’ve had banners taken down, even though other student organizations have been allowed to put up banners. We’ve been told that we’re not allowed to post signage, even though other student organizations are allowed, or have not been reprimanded in similar ways.”
When asked if he believes the legislation opens the door for other boycott movements, Sulur stated he did not wish to speculate, but said he hopes that organizing groups will continue to boycott settler colonial states. Similarly, the NLG does not have plans to organize in support of other countries as it has with Palestine.
The amendment’s purpose and the policies it implements resemble many aspects of SB #52, the ASUCD Senate Bill which enabled and mandated the ASUCD to boycott Israel and other organizations complicit in the “human rights violations against Palestinians amidst the ongoing genocide in Gaza,” as well as established the creation of the Ethical Spending Committee.
“[The amendment] was extremely influenced by [SB #52],” Sulur said. “Many of us [that] were involved in writing the legislation were at the pivotal vote […] gave public comment, and some folks involved in writing this legislation spoke extensively with members of the ASUCD, talking about what implementing the legislation looks like with administration and what the Ethical Spending Committee’s role is in making sure that the language of the bill is followed and follows [University of California] (UC) policy, [as well as] any roadblocks faced in implementation right now with administration and the pushback that they’ve received.”
Sulur described the administration’s response to the LSA’s amendment.
“We received notification on Monday that administration, more specifically Campus Counsel and Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Life, Campus Community and Retention Services Sheri Atkinson, does not believe that this constitutional amendment is in line with campus policy,” Sulur said. “Specifically, their policy regarding their contracts and business agreements. […] I don’t want to speak on specifically what they found in violation further, because though we democratically as an LSA board passed this constitutional amendment, we have received no clear notice, no clear direction and no clear communication from administration as to why this policy was against their guidelines.”
Sulur went on to describe that the administration has only reached out to the LSA’s president and what they took issue with.
“They told them that if we don’t repeal this legislation itself, then administration will take action against the LSA, possibly including dissolving our organization as it is,” Sulur said. “At NLG we view this as a scare tactic, and we’re demanding from the university that if they’re going to threaten to dissolve our student government, they give us a notice, a hearing [and] a fair chance to understand what their gripes are to work with them. Instead, they’re demanding we repeal this legislation itself, but that’s hearsay because they’ve not spoken to us. Currently on the agenda is a vote next Thursday to repeal this legislation.”
After reaching out to Atkinson, The California Aggie was directed to Bill Kisliuk of Strategic Communications, who provided a comment on the matter.
“The Division of Student Affairs works closely with student governments, such as ASUCD and LSA, to support their efforts and provide guidance when requested,” Kisliuk said via email. “With regard to student government activity, the University of California Policies Applying to Campus Activities, Organizations and Students (PACAOS) provides the relevant policies and guidance, such as the authority over their constitution and by-laws, ability to take positions on public issues and requirement to follow university policies. The topic of divestment for the University of California was addressed in a statement from April 2024.”
The aforementioned statement states that the UC opposes boycott and divestment movements against Israel, citing a loss of academic freedom. It also states the UC’s tuition and fees go toward university operations and not investment, as well as mentions that UC Investments is providing stable and growing revenue that benefits employees, education, research and public service mission.
Sulur detailed the next steps of the LSA regarding the amendment.
“This week we are affirmatively reaching out to Sheri Atkinson as the King Hall community as well as members of the LSA board to make sure that we understand where they’re coming from and what their issues are, but their views were kind of sprung upon us without any formal notice,” Sulur said. “Hopefully, we’ll meet with them and gain a better understanding.”
Written by: Rivers Stout — campus@theaggie.org
