- Law Student Association suspended after endorsing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement.
A press conference, held Monday morning on the UC Davis campus, with law students, members of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), the Council on American-Islamic Relations of Sacramento Valley and Central California (CAIR-SV/CC), and allied student groups coming together to denounce the administration’s actions and call for full reinstatement of LSA.
The press conference was in response to a move by the law school to suspend its student government—the Law Student Association (LSA)—after its members passed a resolution endorsing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
The suspension, which removes LSA’s recognition and control over student funds, was announced on the first day of spring break, triggering swift backlash from civil rights organizations, legal advocacy groups, students, and alumni.
At the center of the controversy is a democratically adopted constitutional amendment passed by LSA on February 28, 2025. The amendment prohibits the use of mandatory student fees to fund corporations complicit in Israeli military actions in Gaza—where an estimated 50,000 Palestinians have been killed since the conflict escalated in 2023—as well as speakers representing the Israeli government or universities, or any of the law firms that have rescinded job offers from students who participated in pro-Palestinian activism.
In response, Dean Jessica Berg and Chancellor Gary May stripped the student government of its official status and suspended its governing authority, a move widely decried by legal observers and civil rights advocates as an unconstitutional suppression of student expression.
“Silencing them is not just wrong. It is complicity in crimes against humanity.” – Reshad Noorzay, Executive Director of CAIR-SV/CC
“This is a textbook case of repression,” said Reshad Noorzay, Executive Director of CAIR-SV/CC. “A student government voted to stand against genocide, and UC Davis responded by silencing them. Dean Berg and Chancellor May are punishing ethical leadership to appease political pressure.”
Noorzay went on to condemn what he described as a disturbing national trend of crackdowns on Palestinian advocacy in higher education, citing arrests, deportations, and visa revocations across the country—including twelve revoked international student visas at UC Davis under the current administration.
“The students who are speaking out against genocide are demonstrating profound courage and humanity in the face of global silence and complicity,” he said. “Silencing them is not just wrong. It is complicity in crimes against humanity.”
The National Lawyers Guild chapter at King Hall was central to the drafting and passage of the BDS amendment. A representative from NLG, second-year law student Shaan Sulur, noted the irony of a law school named after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. engaging in what he called “an extreme retaliatory response.”
“The UC Davis administration claims that LSA violated viewpoint neutrality,” Sulur said, “but what they’ve actually done is restrict democratic participation and student control of fees. They’re not protecting students. They’re punishing them.”
Student leaders and advocates also pointed to a glaring conflict of interest involving Chancellor Gary May. As of February 2024, May holds $1.4 million in shares of Leidos, a U.S. weapons contractor with military contracts in both Israel and the United States. He has served on the company’s board, where he earned over $280,000 in 2015 alone. “A chancellor profiting from war cannot claim neutrality in this matter,” Sulur stated.
Multiple speakers noted that this conflict undermines the university’s moral authority, especially when it chooses to dissolve a student government rather than engage in open dialogue. “This is not about neutrality,” said a representative from the Davis Graduate Medical, Veterinary, and Law for Palestine Coalition. “This is about maintaining economic and political relationships with institutions profiting from genocide.”
“A student government voted to stand against genocide, and UC Davis responded by silencing them.” – Reshad Noorzay, Executive Director of CAIR-SV/CC
The press conference also highlighted what speakers described as a broader campaign of surveillance, harassment, and repression against pro-Palestinian students across UC Davis campuses. Speakers from Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the medical school, and the veterinary school recounted a pattern of discriminatory treatment, intimidation by faculty, censorship of vigils and teach-ins, and administrative inaction in the face of death threats and doxing campaigns.
“UC Davis has allowed far-right agitators onto campus in the name of free speech,” said one undergraduate SJP organizer. “But when Palestinians ask the university to divest from genocide, they’re told to be silent. That’s not neutrality. That’s complicity.”
The Veterinary School, in particular, came under criticism for maintaining a student exchange program with Hebrew University in occupied East Jerusalem, despite repeated student demands to end the partnership. Students described retaliation, emotional trauma, and alienation experienced by Palestinian and Arab students trying to organize against the university’s connections to Israeli institutions.
“It’s clear the administration only values free speech when it aligns with power,” one graduate student speaker said. “If they can dissolve the LSA today, what will they do to us tomorrow?”
The condemnation has extended beyond current students. At the press conference, alumna Patty Fong, a former prosecutor with the Yolo County DA’s office and 1986 King Hall graduate, delivered a powerful rebuke.
“This is not the King Hall we knew,” she said. “We protested apartheid South Africa in the 1980s. Now our students are protesting genocide in Gaza—and they’re being punished for it.”
“This is a textbook case of repression.” – Reshad Noorzay, Executive Director of CAIR-SV/CC
Fong, who helped commission the Martin Luther King Jr. terracotta statue that sits in the law school, pledged to withhold all financial and professional support from the institution. “We will not participate in mentorships, panels, or recruitment. We will not donate. We will not lend our credibility to an institution that silences its students in order to appease war profiteers and political opportunists.”
Other alumni echoed her call for an alumni boycott, and pledged to discourage prospective students from applying to King Hall until the LSA is reinstated with full authority and funding.
The administration’s justification hinges on a UC policy requiring student governments to distribute funds on a “viewpoint neutral basis.” But LSA members argue that refusing to fund speakers or companies complicit in human rights violations is not discrimination—it is conscience.
“The idea that opposing genocide is just a ‘viewpoint’ is deeply cynical,” said one anonymous LSA board member. “Our student fees should not be weaponized against our own values. And now we’re expected to continue providing free labor as student leaders, even though we’ve been stripped of any power to actually govern.”
In a closed-door message to students, Dean Berg informed the board that while LSA was suspended, its members would still be expected to fulfill administrative duties without decision-making authority. That move, students argue, is both coercive and exploitative.
Chancellor May’s March email to the entire UC Davis campus hinted at federal funding threats from the Trump administration in the same breath as he condemned student-led protests. Multiple students described the message as chilling, especially given the backdrop of deportations and criminal investigations targeting student activists.
“This is McCarthyism 2.0,” one undergraduate speaker said. “Except this time, it’s targeting Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims who dare to speak out against genocide.”
The coalition of students, civil rights groups, and alumni delivered a united demand: immediate reinstatement of the Law Student Association, restoration of its governing authority and funds, and a formal commitment by UC Davis to protect student free speech and political advocacy—including advocacy for Palestinian liberation.
They also called for the university to end its partnerships with weapons manufacturers and Israeli institutions complicit in human rights violations, and for an independent investigation into Chancellor May’s financial ties to Leidos.
As the press conference concluded, student leaders pledged to escalate their campaign and promised that administrative intimidation would not silence them.
“Our generation is watching a genocide in real time,” one student said. “And instead of helping us stop it, UC Davis is trying to stop us. But we won’t be silenced. Not now. Not ever.”
University Defends Suspension of LSA, Citing Policy Violations
In the wake of widespread criticism over its suspension of the UC Davis Law Student Association (LSA), the university released two documents defending its actions: a March 24 official statement and an April 1 FAQ issued by the law school administration. The documents argue that the LSA’s passage of a Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) resolution violated University of California policy, which requires student governments to allocate funds on a “viewpoint-neutral basis.”
According to the administration, the LSA’s amendment barred funding for events or groups connected to Israel and for law firms that rescinded job offers from pro-Palestine students. Because these restrictions were based on political viewpoints, the university claims, they ran afoul of UC’s policy framework. The Chancellor’s decision suspended the LSA’s recognition and transferred control of student funds to the Law School’s Office for Student Affairs.
“The university cannot allow disregard or violation of state or federal law and university policy,” the March 24 statement read. The administration also denied that this action suppresses student free speech, stating that while student governments can take political positions, they cannot restrict public funds based on ideology.
But critics say the university’s response sidesteps the real issue: that students took a principled, democratic stand against genocide, and the administration retaliated. “This is not about viewpoint neutrality—it’s about punishing students for taking a moral position that challenges the political status quo,” said one National Lawyers Guild representative.
The FAQ further attempted to reassure students that the LSA had not been permanently dissolved and that student services would continue uninterrupted. But for many students and alumni, these gestures ring hollow. As one LSA member put it: “The administration wants us to perform the labor of student government without any actual governance power.”
Legal experts and advocacy organizations argue that this is part of a growing pattern across U.S. campuses: university leaders invoking bureaucratic technicalities to silence criticism of Israel, particularly when it comes from students of color, Muslims, and Palestinians. While the university emphasizes its opposition to antisemitism, critics say it is conflating anti-Zionist political expression with hate speech, further endangering vulnerable students.
The suspension has also reignited debate about conflicts of interest, with critics noting that Chancellor Gary May sits on the board of weapons contractor Leidos, which profits from U.S. and Israeli military operations. For students and civil rights advocates, this context cannot be divorced from the administration’s heavy-handed response.
What began as a campus-level vote to avoid financially supporting war profiteering has now sparked a national controversy about speech, power, and complicity. Whether UC Davis will revisit its decision remains to be seen—but students have made it clear they will not be silenced.
Peaceful protest is welcomed as long as all views are allowed to also partake in peaceful protest.
Once assault or property damage take place then all bets are off.
USE THIS ONE
From the Davis Enterprise (I’m sure this was just an oversite not to include this here):
UCD provided the following FAQ regarding the decision to suspend the LSA
What exactly did the Chancellor’s decision entail?
The recognition of LSA is suspended until it comes into compliance with university policies. The funds were reallocated and will be disbursed for student use by the Law School Office for Student Affairs consistent with policy.
What did the LSA do that led to the suspension?
The LSA board members voted 16-10 (with two abstentions) to add language to the association’s Constitution and Bylaws specifying that student organizations requesting funds must ensure “their funding request aligns with the requirements outlined in the 2025 UC Davis Law Student Association Boycott of Businesses Connected to Israel and Complicit in Ongoing Genocide and Occupation in Palestine Resolution.” This was passed with the knowledge that the language violates university policy, as the language restricts funding based on viewpoint.
Where does the policy that was violated come from?
The University of California has systemwide policies that require student governments to “provide financial and other tangible support for student activities and organizations on a viewpoint-neutral basis…in order to foster a sense of community and to further discussion among students of the broadest range of ideas” (emphasis added).
Isn’t this vote just about free speech?
No. While student governments have the right to address and take positions on public issues as long as the statement does not purport to represent the views of the University (See Section 63.00 of the UC Policies Applying to Campus Activities, Organizations and Students), the Resolution goes beyond this by restricting University funds based on viewpoint.
The University is committed to ensuring that all students may exercise their constitutionally protected rights of free expression, even in instances in which the positions expressed may be viewed by some as controversial or unpopular. The University’s Free Speech website includes resources for students and other campus community members to learn more about the First Amendment at a public institution and to find information on exercising their rights, campus policies, and obtaining resources and support.
Does this mean that LSA no longer exists?
No, the group is suspended at the moment, not dissolved.
What about all the other student groups?
This decision does not affect other registered student organizations or non-LSA related student groups; they all continue to be recognized.
What about the individual students involved in the vote?
Some students voted in favor of the Constitution and Bylaws change and others voted against; the vote was confidential.
Will the student groups have access to the funding that LSA previously controlled?
Yes. The Student Affairs Office notified student organization leaders that they will use the fall 2024 LSA forms and process for handling funding requests. At this time, we expect that events such as Aokirama and Barrister’s Ball will move forward as planned and are grateful to the students who are involved in planning these events.
What if we have an invited speaker who is viewed as really problematic by a large majority (or all of) the student body?
All funding decisions by state actors must be viewpoint neutral. Using power over money to silence viewpoints with which one disagrees is antithetical to First Amendment principles. Not only does it undermine the goals and legal obligations of the university, but it may undermine broader dialogue on controversial issues, something that is so very important in our polarized society. If students object to a speaker, they are free to decide not to attend an event and/or plan counter-programming. While students may not prevent others from attending, they are free to make their disagreement known.
How is this different from an individual deciding whether to fund or buy something from a company which does things they don’t like?
Individuals retain rights to use their money as they choose, including all members of the university community. But university (public) funds must be allocated on a viewpoint neutral basis.
Isn’t this just a form of civil disobedience?
Civil disobedience is the direct violation of a law used when that specific law is considered unfair or disenfranchises a group of people. Identifying something as civil disobedience does not mean there are no consequences for the action as civil disobedience is not protected speech under the Constitution. The policy at issue (viewpoint neutral funding) is designed to apply equally to all groups and, in fact, ensure that no group is treated differently than another.
What if I want to say that the University should act differently?
UC Davis School of Law administrators, along with all campus leaders, encourage and support students as they engage in civil discourse on campus. We work to educate, initiate and foster respectful dialogue and believe that ultimately, within the setting of (and on the grounds of) a university, dialogue and discourse are part of our purpose.
Do I have special obligations as a law student?
Law students have all the same rights of free speech as other people. Lawyers (and lawyers in training) have important skills that can be used to benefit society– careful reading, attention to detail in drafting, seeking information and truth, and maintaining high ethical standards are all part of being a professional. And while not part of professional standards, King Hall strives to create a community where all people and ideas are welcome. This includes students who support the LSA vote and students who do not
In practical terms, what does the suspension mean for students on faculty committees?
Students remain on those committees. While the LSA “facilitates” the identification of students for faculty committees, the students on those committees serve as general law student body representatives outside of LSA.
Why is LSA important to the law school?
LSA has served the law school student population as their student government since 1978 and provides advocacy, community-building activities and faculty committee representation for the school. King Hall has a long history of student input into administration decision-making, and LSA has supported and provided that input for decades. LSA provides community events and mentorship programs, selection of faculty committee representatives, fundraising for and oversight of the basic needs food pantry and professional clothing closet, and other support for the quality of experience for our students.
Will there be a mechanism for student input going forward?
Yes, we will continue to work with students and seek out input. Whether that entails LSA being reinstated or another approach depends on whether LSA chooses to come into compliance with university policy.
Just posted an update to the original article with the university’s response (apparently originally sent to the wrong email)
I have a question. Can anyone point to any successful BDS campaign activity anywhere in the United States?
This has been going on for decades and the only divestment I know of is Unilever selling Ben and Jerry’s. Sort of an anti BDS divestiture.
I should have looked it up before I posted. Before 10-7-23 there were a few successes. All the disinvestment since that date likely has more to do with force majeure.
So it seems to me that the people most hurt by what is going on at the law school are the students. This episode has put a squeeze on an institution whose mission is to teach law. If people take action denying resources to that institution it hurts students more than it affects any of the horrific barbarity of the Middle East.
I get standing on principles. But as lawyers you should know the sometimes foolishness of clients who want to stand on principles even when doing so causes more harm than good. I would urge alumni to stand down from actions that are detrimental to students who are caught between a rock and a hard place through no fault of their own regarding this controversy.
Question: Are there no non-anti-zionist Jews left at the UCD Law School? How did BDS, etc. get to be the opinion of LSA ? It used to be Jews dominated law, as well as comedy and diamond cutting to name a few. Is there a minority of non-anti-zionist Jews at the UCD Law School who are not being heard? Or have they just abandoned the profession?
Alan – I’m sure there are plenty. It’s worth noting about 20 people attended the press conference, the law school has many many more people. To me this isn’t a story about BDS, two years ago, the law school and university would have ignored this as an innocuous and symbolic move, but in the current climate everyone is scared of their shadows and funding.
“I’m sure there are plenty.”
Clearly not enough.
“two years ago, the law school and university would have ignored this as an innocuous and symbolic move, but in the current climate everyone is scared of their shadows and funding.”
UCD’s Q&A was excellent.
“At the center of the controversy is a democratically adopted constitutional amendment passed by LSA on February 28, 2025. The amendment prohibits the use of mandatory student fees to fund corporations complicit in Israeli military actions in Gaza—where an estimated 180,000 Palestinians have been killed since the conflict escalated in 2023”
Perhaps you can justify why you printed this Gaza casualty number — 180,000, really? I assume this was in the resolution. This is especially galling because just days ago Hamas’ health ministry removed over 3000 names from the names of those killed, and decreased the number of women/children/elderly killed to 28%. I’m not trying to minimize the tragedy of civilians killed in war, but since the conflict began many groups have been saying the numbers and percentages were wildly inflated by Hamas for propaganda purposes. Now that that’s coming out, LSA claims 180,000? And worse, you allowed that to just be said, unchecked?
You need to not only remove that, but you need to write an apology for ever allowing that to be printed.
Am I missing something here? Did a nuke go off in Gaza that I didn’t hear about?
I screwed up. I used the figure without checking where it came from. I revised it to the NPR total of 50,000 from earlier this week
The 180,000 figure came from the Lancet and apparently calculated indirect deaths, not just direct casualties.
Indirect Deaths – that will take years after the war to sort out.
“I revised it to the NPR total of 50,000 from earlier this week”
Because NPR and the Hamas Health Ministry can always be trusted.
Keith, no source can always be trusted
No kidding.
But if you watched the congressional hearings about the funding of NPR you would know our government is funding a news group to put out Democrat propaganda.
And as far as the Hamas Health Ministry, well here’s a clue…”Hamas”
Congressional Hearings are the epitome of an untrustworthy source.
I appreciate your doing this. I’m less concerned with the numbers, because the whole thing is horrific and incomprehensible at any level. More I find the dynamic of two sides arguing over the numbers as mass gaslighting as if the dynamic itself isn’t symptomatic of the problem. The point is the ‘truth’ is lost in war, and the most important thing is for everyone to recognize is parties manipulating casualty numbers to suit their narrative, and more importantly to recognize the obviousness of this as the numbers and their sources always favor the side reporting those numbers.