In U.C.L.A. Debate Over Jewish Student, Echoes on Campus of Old Biases - A student board debated whether the religion of a second-year economics major meant she would be biased in dealing with sensitive governance questions, and the discussion has upended the campus.

Did you mean 'oppressors' or 'oppressed'.

I wrote and meant oppressor. In Let's Act's eyes she is a White Jewish girl and wouldn't understand what it's like to be discriminated against. That only happens to minorities. In other words, she needs to "Check her White privilege"

Do you mind detailing the double standard. Idk were videos/minutes are of prior interview/meetings are to compare against.

I watched a video, can't find it in my history, but it had Fab Roth's questions for Rachel, as well as Negeen's and Fab's deliberations after Rachel left the room, and Avi saying how disappointed he was that Rachel was being denied the position essentially because she was Jewish.

Talk to a Let's Act member, someone like Negeen. She will say that she has faced discrimination her whole life, for multiple reasons. Being Muslim, a woman, transfer student (ok) etc. I'm not doubting those things (except the transfer student part).

But then, she discriminates against a girl that wants to join student government by using the racist justification that she so vehemently opposes. It took someone on faculty to ask "What the fuck are you doing??" to get her to change her mind. Then she posted a bullshit Facebook status to save face. She actually thought she was doing the right thing.

Another example: the Let's Act pledge to not take trips to Israel, because it would make them biased. By that account, wouldn't it be just as biased to visit Palestine or Mecca? But those weren't mentioned in their pledge. The pledge promotes ignorance in the name of "tolerance" and "open-mindedness".

Discriminating based on race and questioning one's eligibility because of ethnic background are the same thing. They are racism.

Questioning pro Israeli beliefs by itself isn't racist.

You're right, and I never said it was. I support the existence of Israel but I will admit that Israel has done quite a few questionable things in its short history. But this debate wasn't necessarily about her being Pro-Israel.

It was about her being a part of the Jewish community, and whether or not that would make her too biased to hold the position. If that is the case, then Negeen has no business making those claims, as being on the polar opposite side of the Jewish-Muslim conflict, she is just as biased.

To say that she can't serve, because she is part of the Jewish community, is racist. Negeen even said that Rachel is very qualified, but she's just uncomfortable with appointing her, and not sure why.

"I'll have to take another look at her resume" is a euphemism for "Yeah, she probably IS right for the position, but I can't get my own bias out of the way. So I'll pretend to give it more consideration before I vote no."

Unrelated, I'm actually writing a paper about Chomsky right now. Not about his political views, but rather his opinion of language. I thought it was interesting to see his name pop up here!

/r/ucla Thread Link -