By John Q. Hosedrinker 
As part of an investigation into alleged antisemitic incidents, UC Berkeley sent the Trump administration the names of 160 faculty members and students, prompting criticism from targeted individuals. According to a letter sent to affected campus members, the university’s lawyers included their names in reports to the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. Judith Butler, a prominent professor at the university, questioned the lack of information regarding the specific allegations and the suspension of standard complaint procedures. Concerns were raised about potential consequences for those on the list, including international students, encompassing employment, academic freedom, and the suppression of political debate.
Read the original article here
US universities UC Berkeley shares 160 names with Trump administration in ‘McCarthy era’ move, and the ramifications of this are simply astounding. We’re talking about UC Berkeley, a university that has long prided itself on being a bastion of free speech, the very birthplace of the Free Speech Movement back in the 1960s. The university’s commitment to open debate, even on contentious issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was a cornerstone of its identity. To see such an institution seemingly cave in, to hand over names and potentially compromise the very values it has championed for decades, is nothing short of heartbreaking and, frankly, disgraceful.
If UC Berkeley, with its reputation for progressive thought and free expression, is willing to take this action, what hope is there for other institutions? This begs the question: Where do we draw the line? It’s a chilling thought to contemplate how easily those principles can be compromised. The concern is amplified when considering the broader context, the alleged motivations behind this action, and the potential consequences for those whose names are on this list. This isn’t about fighting antisemitism, it’s about control.
The act of compiling lists of individuals, especially when driven by political motives, harks back to a dark period in American history – the McCarthy era. The parallels are unsettling. The potential for individuals to be targeted, blacklisted, and marginalized based on their associations or beliefs is a serious threat to academic freedom and open discourse. The fear is that this list could be used to target and remove people, and that the university would be complicit in that.
The speed with which this capitulation occurred is also a point of concern. It suggests a fragility in the principles these institutions claim to uphold. How quickly major universities are deciding to capitulate to authoritarianism is wild. It hasn’t even been 8 months… fuck. It really was a house built on sand. Fun while it lasted, I guess. This exposes a vulnerability, a willingness to prioritize certain interests – perhaps financial or political – over core values. The fact that the UC system buckled under pressure, while the state government did not, also raises questions about the influence of specific individuals or groups within the university system. The timing of this move, whether influenced by threats, blackmail, or simple pragmatism, is irrelevant. The outcome is the same.
The motivations behind the Trump administration’s request for these names, and the context surrounding it, further add to the unease. The suggestion that this is about fighting antisemitism is difficult to accept, given the history of the Trump administration’s relationship with Jewish people. There is a fear that this is a smokescreen, a way to control anyone and everyone.
It’s important to consider the broader implications of such actions. This could be a prelude to a more concerted effort to target and silence individuals and groups perceived as dissenters. It’s a dangerous precedent and one that could have far-reaching consequences for the future of academic freedom and free speech. The focus should be on the larger picture; the administration is building a list of people to target and we should all be afraid.
The irony is palpable. The institutions that should be safeguarding free expression and critical thought are, in this instance, potentially complicit in actions that could undermine those very principles. These institutions are corporations first and foremost.
The question that lingers is whether there are any institutions willing to stand up against such pressure. How quickly major universities are deciding to capitulate to authoritarianism is wild. It hasn’t even been 8 months… fuck. Institutions have a vested interest in appealing to those in power. The implications are clear: the pursuit of power and influence often trumps the commitment to principle. The Second Amendment does not protect against tyranny, especially when the government has a loyal and militarized police force ready to enact the will of the tyrant.