It was unseemly that UCLA had to be enjoined from permitting the exclusion of Jewish students on its campus. It was even more unseemly that UCLA appealed the temporary injunction. Were they fighting for the right to exclude Jews? Someone apparently decided that “unseemly” wasn’t the best tact, and so UCLA voluntarily dismissed its appeal. Smart move.

Its lawyers just filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, and UCLA announced this to employees, with a link to FAQs “to help employees understand how to carry out their responsibilities consistent with the requirements of the preliminary injunction.”

Interesting that they call the rules by which the campus will theoretically stop enabling discrimination FAQs, given that rules usually come first and then FAQs because the rules are insufficient to inform anyone what they can, can’t and shouldn’t do. But here are the salient bullet points.

University policy states that no individual or group of individuals may prohibit or obstruct any student from accessing any ordinarily available campus areas, programs or activities on the basis of their religion, race, or any other protected characteristic, or on the basis of their political or other viewpoints, including their beliefs about the state of Israel. Individuals must also comply with all of the University’s time, place, and manner policies and other policies that may impact campus events or expressive activities.

If any individual or group of individuals is prohibiting or obstructing students from accessing ordinarily available campus areas, programs or activities in violation of University policy, University officials will act to promptly restore access to students, while also limiting risks of substantial disruptions to campus operations or risks to health and safety. That includes by:

• Informing individuals that they are engaging in a policy violation and directing them to change their conduct and/or remove the barrier to access.
• Warning individuals of the potential consequences of failure to comply and further directing them to comply.
• If individuals fail to comply and barriers to access remain, the University will involve appropriate resources which may include the Campus Fire Marshal, the UC Police Department, and/or other state or local law enforcement agencies to assist with removal of the barriers to access and take other appropriate action which may include involving law enforcement and may result in discipline and/or arrests.
• Instituting the applicable campus review process for members of the University community who are cited for a violation of campus rules or law.

Will these do the trick? On a theoretical level, perhaps. As it’s very likely that another encampment will magically appear come the start of the next term, it is incumbent on the school to spell out its process. The first two, ask them nicely and when they lapse into a chant of “from the river to the sea,” then warn them sternly, isn’t likely to have any more impact than they did before.

The third point of the FAQs, which is almost certain to be reached within minutes unless UCLA decides that the students excluding Jewish students from access to campus and precluding classes and exams to proceed unfettered by disruption should be given days or weeks to comply, is where the beef is. Or more to the point, where the beef should be. It’s quite a sanitary explanation that law enforcement will be called. Will they? The “will involve” seems awfully squishy.

If the point is that failure to remove the encampment within, say, six hours will result in law enforcement being called to physically remove the individuals. If it explicitly provided that they will be forcibly removed if they fail to leave voluntarily and swiftly, it would have a bit more punch. No amount of screeching or crying is going to change the fact that the cops will lay their hands upon these students’ bodies in a less than empathetic way. It will not be a safe space.

But UCLA doesn’t say that. It can be interpreted that way, or it can be interpreted as something less physically intrusive. But if the university seeks to comply with the court’s preliminary injunction requiring UCLA to stop enabling the exclusion of Jewish students, are these FAQs up to the task of making it absolutely clear to the encamping students that they can promptly leave of their own accord or they will be physically, and unpleasantly, removed by the police?