The University of California (UC) has made a significant announcement regarding its stance on boycotting Israel. In a letter to chancellors, UC President Michael Drake declared that student governments and other university entities are prohibited from participating in any boycotts against Israel. This decision comes in response to a directive from the Trump administration, which warned that institutions engaging in such boycotts could lose federal funding for medical and scientific research.
Drake emphasized that while UC does not have a specific anti-boycott rule, existing policies require competitive bidding for contracts and mandate that student governments operate under sound business practices. He stated that boycotts based on a country’s associations violate these policies. This directive applies to all UC campuses, medical centers, the Agriculture and Natural Resources division, and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
However, the ban does not extend to student clubs, which have more autonomy in their political activities. This means that groups like Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace can still express their views and support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement without restrictions. Nevertheless, the ban could impact recognized student governments, particularly in professional schools like law, where recent boycott resolutions have caused controversy.
This move builds on UC’s long-standing opposition to the BDS movement, which gained traction among student governments last year. Activists have increasingly called for divesting from companies associated with Israel, claiming their actions are not anti-Semitic but rather a response to perceived injustices.
The announcement also comes amid ongoing investigations by the Trump administration into allegations of antisemitism at UC campuses. The Department of Health and Human Services and the National Science Foundation have indicated that federal funding could be at risk for universities that promote anti-Israel boycotts. Last academic year, UC received $2.6 billion from the National Institutes of Health and $524 million from the NSF.
Drake’s letter highlights the importance of balancing the rights of individuals to express their opinions with the university’s obligation to conduct business in accordance with its policies. He affirmed that while students, faculty, and staff have the right to express their views, university entities must refrain from financial boycotts.
The response from students has been mixed. Some student leaders, like Aditi Hariharan from UC Davis, have expressed disappointment, arguing that student governments provide a vital platform for student voices. On the other hand, some faculty members, particularly those supportive of Israel, have praised the decision, stating that official boycotts can be divisive and counterproductive.
This decision may face challenges as student governments, known for taking bold stands on various issues, have previously supported boycotts against Israel. For instance, UC Davis suspended its Law Student Association after it passed a resolution to boycott Israel, citing violations of campus policies requiring neutrality in funding decisions.
As UC continues to navigate these complex issues, the implications of this boycott ban will likely unfold over the coming months, shaping the conversation around activism and academic freedom within the university system.