U. cancels RUSA meeting set to discuss anti-Israeli discrimination proposal, prompting investigation

On Thursday, the University's administration quashed the Rutgers University Student Assembly's final session for the Fall 2024 semester.

The University's decision was purportedly linked to public outcry against a bill related to a contentious definition of antisemitism. The definition proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), has garnered widespread debate for its vagueness and for conflating anti-Israel sentiments with anti-Jewish sentiments.

Through previous reporting, as well as interviews with and comments from members of the Assembly, local advocacy groups and University leadership, The Daily Targum pieced together a timeline of events leading up to the cancellation of the meeting.

Assembly's historic legislation related to antisemitism, anti-Palestinian racism

Haseeb Rehman, a School of Engineering junior and off-campus commuter Assembly representative, explained how the Assembly's participation in discussions around antisemitism and anti-Palestinian racism dates back to 2021 when the Assembly passed a resolution adopting the IHRA's definition of antisemitism.

At that time, the definition adopted by the Assembly read, "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."

In the last two semesters, the Assembly has seen bills related to adopting definitions of anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia, condemning a speaker with a history of anti-Palestinian and Islamophobic commentary and notably, a referendum to support efforts to divest the University's endowment from companies conducting business with the Israeli government.

Leading up to Thursday's session, a bill expanding the Assembly's ability to use the IHRA definition was initially introduced to be voted on.

However, opposition from a group of Assembly representatives who had concerns about the bill's rationale and implications for pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel speech on campus, including Rehman, resulted in the bill gaining approval from a requisite committee but not the Assembly's executive board.

Without the board's approval, the bill did not make it to the original agenda for that night, Rehman explained. However, the bill could have made it onto the floor that night through a successful motion to amend the agenda once the session began.

Local advocacy groups weigh in

Rehman said that the potential of the bill's reintroduction resulted in other advocacy groups preparing to mobilize the Student Activities Center on the College Avenue campus that night.

Online, the bill drew criticism from non-Rutgers-affiliated advocacy groups such as Revolutionaries Against Global Exploitation (RAGE), the Anti-Zionist Minyan (AZM) and the Students for Justice in Palestine at New Brunswick (SJP).

All of them called on followers to attend the Assembly meeting to organize against the bill, which, unlike the one passed in 2021, explicitly calls on Assembly members to "commit to fighting all forms of antisemitism, anti-Zionism and anti-Israeli racism on campus" if passed that night as written, according to a post from AZM and SJP.

In an additional statement to the Targum, AZM explained that the bill would silence individuals critiquing Israel under the guise of protecting Jewish students — not taking into consideration Jewish individuals who are against Israel and the fact that criticisms against colonial regimes in other contexts are typically allowed.

On Monday, one of the sponsors of the bill, Students Supporting Israel at Rutgers—New Brunswick (SSI), also weighed in on the discourse. In response to the joint post by AZM and SJP, SSI wrote that Jewish students should be able to define hatred toward the community without intervention from others outside the community, given that other minority groups are similarly entitled to do so.

"With sponsorship from the largest Jewish and pro-Israel organizations on campus, this resolution should not be in question and the discourse we witnessed in regard to the bill is appalling," SSI wrote to the Targum.

Assembly executive leadership paints timeline of scheduled Thursday session

In an interview with the Targum, Assembly President Jack Ramirez and Vice President Kaia Dyckman, both School of Arts and Sciences seniors, explained the events leading up to the administration's decision — an action Ramirez reported having never seen before — and the Assembly's plan moving forward. 

Around 5:30 p.m., Ramirez said he was notified that groups not formally affiliated with the University were calling for mobilization at the Assembly's meeting. Given the potential implications for public safety, Ramirez said he informed the police — something he said was typical practice.

Approximately one hour later, he said he received a phone call from an administrator at the Division of Student Affairs in which the administrator stated that the Assembly was prohibited from "gaveling into" their session — regardless of whether it was open or closed to the public. Only the Assembly's voting members were permitted to enter the space at that point.

Assembly leaders attempted to advocate for the session to continue in a closed format if necessary but were ultimately barred from doing so due to the administration's concerns about logistics, Dyckman said.

This explanation was reiterated in the Assembly's formal statement, issued shortly after those conversations. Rehman shed some light on the statement, saying that it was publicized without the Assembly's non-executive voting members weighing in.

Ramirez also specified that the decision came from administrators at higher levels of leadership and that those at lower levels typically unfairly dealt with the brunt of the backlash.

"A lot of this has been decisions that were made outside of any of our hands that are in this building tonight," Ramirez said. "It's definitely saddening to see that decisions are being made where eyes aren't there to see it."

By 7:30 p.m., individuals had filled the lobby of the Student Activities Center — Ramirez would later approximate this as 20 — waiting at the doors into the building to attend the session. Police had also been dispatched to the Student Activities Center, where the Assembly's meetings are typically held, barring entry into the space.

Ramirez and Dyckman shared their disappointment in the ultimate decision and its blow to the Assembly's attempts to remain committed to transparency and accountability.

"I definitely think that this is a cause for concern, a reason for the student body to raise their eyebrow," Ramirez said. "Not to each other or to any student group, but rather to … higher administration that made this call."

Students seemingly began to do so in the comments section of the Assembly's statement, with the AZM asking, "What 'logistical issue' needed five cops to come lock us out in the cold?" and another user asking, "Did they even respect the students enough to tell them what supposed security risk required the entire meeting to be canceled?"

The administration’s actions also drew backlash from SSI, which scrutinized University administrators for "(failing) to find sufficient security to protect students and allow them to have a safe debate on the proposed resolution."

"The administration sent the University a clear message: we will not protect or ensure the safety of the Jewish, Zionist and Israeli communities on campus," SSI wrote in the post.

Assembly leaders respond to U. citing concerns of high attendance, capacity

A statement from a University spokesperson indicated the administration had canceled the meeting in the manner they did due to an anticipated uptick in attendance. They cited a need for a venue that could accommodate those numbers, as well as the necessary personnel to support them.

The statement further reiterated the administration's commitment to supporting the Assembly in meeting those needs during their next session in January, as well as their commitment to free speech and the use of public forums for discussion.

"Rutgers' position on free speech is clear: All members of our community, including faculty, staff and students, are free to express their viewpoints in public forums," their statement read. "The University encourages respectful and vigorous discourse."

At the time of publication, the University did not respond to the Targum's inquiry as to why the course of action to respond to this situation deviated from previous approaches toward similar bills.

Regarding the implications of the University's decisions on Assembly operations, Ramirez and Dyckman said the Assembly would continue to support students vocalizing their concerns and redevelop a sense of safety moving into future meetings, given the potential trepidation that could have come from police presence. 

"I think we had plenty of pieces of the legislation on our agendas this past semester that I think it's fair to say that within the broader Rutgers community (have) been divisive, but people have handled it with decorum and grace, and I think that's how we hoped tonight would go," Dyckman said. "But as the next semester and Assembly continues, we hope that's how things continue on."

Rehman weighed into the proposed path forward, acknowledging that the executive board navigated a challenging situation and made its opposition to the administration's decisions clear.

At the same time, he critiqued their expectations of Assembly members and the public, shared concerns about the bill continuing to be put up for vote and called on the Assembly's executive leadership to take more decisive action.

"Our constituents must have the unimpeded ability to attend this meeting if we have any regard for their political rights and expression on campus, and I believe (the Assembly), especially (the executive) board, must take a stronger stand against admin and their actions that night, especially considering they already correctly identified their actions as repression as per (Ramirez's) communication with us," he said.

Assembly to open deeper investigation

On Sunday, Ramirez announced to Assembly members via Slack that he would be issuing an executive order to look into the events of the canceled session further.

His message read that the investigation would cover the details of administrative decision-making and respond to concerns raised by Assembly members, with an end deliverable of a publicized report on their findings and how to move forward.