If you’re a UC Berkeley student reading this, open CalCentral. You will notice that there is a new task waiting for you called “Civil Rights and Open Expression.” If you haven’t completed this task, no one can blame you — its generic title and attached 30-minute video hardly make an impression.

But if you sit through the whole 30 minutes, a few moments may stand out. Maybe it’s an offhand remark in the time, place and manner section, which suggests UC Berkeley has banned masks at protests. Maybe it’s the definition of harassment, which includes creating an “offensive environment.” Or maybe it’s the hypothetical instances of discrimination that include a protest of Israel that blocks the path to a building and features slogans such as “no Zionists can pass.”

This video, tucked away in a corner of the student portal, alludes to a larger conflict that has impacted political speech at all levels of California public education.

At the time of writing, California Democrats are attempting to define themselves as stalwarts against Trumpism. This self-definition has been challenged by the issue of antisemitism on college campuses.

Following the 2024 Palestine Encampment movement, the federal government set its sights on universities. Through a series of congressional hearings and funding cuts, the Trump administration spun a narrative that campuses had become hotbeds of (leftist) antisemitism. In turn, Berkeley handed over the names of 160 students and faculty to the federal government. California lawmakers were relatively silent about this, gesturing towards a broader strategy: proactively policing speech in academic environments, while trying to maintain distance from Trump.

“Just because (President) Donald Trump is abusing antisemitism doesn’t mean that antisemitism somehow doesn’t exist,” said state Sen. Scott Weiner, the co-chair of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus, in a press release. “When Jewish children are saying, ‘I don’t feel safe in school, I don’t feel safe wearing a kippah or a Star of David’ — to associate that with Donald Trump is despicable.”

In 2024, Weiner coauthored the seemingly innocuous SB 1287. Penned primarily by former state Rep. Steve Glazer, the “Equity in Higher Education Act” demands that the UC Board of Regents and CSU Board of Trustees update campus demonstration policies to take a proactive approach in combating “conduct that creates a hostile environment for students on campus.”

SB 1287, which was touted as a generic antidiscrimination bill and never specifically employed the phrase “antisemitism,” was the impetus for the aforementioned video and updates to the Policies on Student Conduct and Discipline. In an interview with The Intercept, Glazer refuted the idea that the bill was uniquely charged.

“People want to make this be about pro-Palestinian, anti-Palestinian bill … I would argue, pro-Hamas, anti-Hamas,” Glazer said. “Whatever framing you want to use to make your case, people are doing that — I’m not.”

Despite this, support was split along ideological lines. Opponents, including California Jewish Voice for Peace, the California Faculty Association and ACLU California Action, argued that the bill’s lack of specificity would produce a chilling effect on campus free speech.

Since then, the legislature has turned its eye towards K-12 education. On the two-year anniversary of October 7th, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB715, creating a state-level office of civil rights to review curriculum for perceived antisemitic content. The debate over AB 715 echoed SB 1287.

The debate over AB 715 echoed concerns about SB 1287. Supporters, once again including prominent pro-Israel groups, argued that the bill was a necessary measure to protect Jewish students. Detractors, in turn, argued that the bill’s lack of specificity would create an atmosphere of fear in classrooms.

In contrast to states such as New York and Florida, California has not explicitly embraced the highly controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, nor has it taken cues from Texas in explicitly banning certain forms of campus protest. Instead, SB 1287 and AB 715 deploy vague and ostensibly neutral language. While the legislature has not created legal barriers to demonstration, these bills discourage a wide range of political discourses and actions while maintaining deniability.

The framework that California lawmakers use to police antisemitism in public schools has been largely influenced by the Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California, or JPAC.

JPAC has immense influence in the California State legislature. Newsom is a recurring speaker at JPAC’s annual capitol summits, which are routinely attended by Anti-Defamation League lobbyists and a diverse array of elected state officials. JPAC is especially close to the California Legislative Jewish Caucus, a group of 18 state senators and assembly members who have helped to author most of JPAC’s sponsored legislation.

This tight-knit relationship is thanks in part to David Bocarsly, the current executive director of JPAC and former director of the Jewish Caucus. Bocarsly described JPAC as “a unifying voice of California’s Jewish community to the state capital,” noting that his former role has allowed JPAC to “work very closely with (the Jewish Caucus).”

After the Oct. 7 attacks, JPAC doubled down on efforts to curb antisemitism. As Bocarsly put it, “We went to the legislature and said we need something. We need some legislation to help specifically address the rise in anti-Jewish bigotry and hate in our schools.”

Bocarsly takes pride in SB1287’s openness to interpretation, claiming the biggest “achievement” of SB 1287 lay in a school's ability to “adopt their own policies.” Similarly, Bocarsly notes AB715’s lack of strict content guidelines and definitions.

“There is nothing in this bill that defines antisemitism,” Bocarsly said. “There’s nothing in this bill that says you can’t teach about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In fact, there is essentially nothing in this bill that dictates what can and can’t be taught in the classroom. This is a bill that is focused on preventing discrimination, harassment, bullying and violence against Jewish students.”

Recently, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, or ADC, announced plans to sue over the passage of AB 715.

“AB 715 doesn’t directly say, ‘This is how we’re defining antisemitism,’ and I think it’s intentional,” said Jenin Younes, the legal director of the ADC. “I think they’re giving people the impression that it includes criticism of Israel or various forms of criticizing Israel and Zionism.”

Younes argued that the vagueness of this legislation has created a chilling effect on classroom discussions.

Though Bocarsly refutes any specific definition of antisemitism, he has previously suggested that it is synonymous with anti-Zionism. In an August 2023 JPAC press release, Bocarsly stated that, “there is still a lot of work ahead to implement robust ethnic studies courses across California’s schools that are also free from antisemitism and anti-Zionism.”

Ellie Yousif, ADC’s Advocacy and communications manager, highlighted a direct line between state and federal approaches:

“What the state of California is doing and what the federal government is doing are conflating the Jewish religion and Jewish identity with a state that is committing a genocide against an occupied people,” Yousif said.”The government and the school system are trying to make that conflation, and they are trying to codify it.”

This analysis echoes the perspective of campus organizers, who have been faced with mixed messaging following the passage of SB 1287.

“We are aware that technically, if we are protesting or at an action and one of us is wearing a mask, we can be held accountable,” said Maya, a member of Berkeley’s JVP, who asked to go by only her first name. “On a more hypothetical level, we are aware that this generally increases an air of surveillance and sets a precedent for further restrictions.”

A month ago, a handful of students staged a teach-in at Doe Library — this year’s first test of the updated time, place and manner regulations.

The protest was short-lived. Following a couple hours of chants and poem recitations, the students were met by UCPD in riot gear and chased out of the library. While no arrests were made, campus spokesperson Dan Mogoluf said that authorities will “seek (protesters) out in an effort to impose appropriate consequences,” clarifying that the protesters wearing masks were violating UC policy.

Since then, the University has proactively policed campus demonstrations. Several weeks ago, the Berkeley Law building’s oversight committee sent an email to would-be protestors, threatening that “the use of amplified sound or other disruptions of the normal operations of the university” would result in disciplinary action. The protestors abided, but the demonstration was closely monitored by private security.

SB 1287 and AB 715 refuse to clarify what it means to create a “hostile environment” and defer defining antisemitism to a nebulous Office of Civil Rights, respectively. While California Democrats have avoided embracing the explicitly draconian framework of the federal government, these bills’ openness to interpretation has done little to address their stated concern that bad actors might be abusing antisemitism.

160 names of UC Berkeley students and faculty “associated with reports of antisemitism” were handed over to the federal government without a clear line on what “antisemitism” actually constituted.

Students hoping that a new federal administration will reopen the doors for political expression on campus should take little solace in California’s Democratic contenders. As Newsom positions himself for a 2028 presidential bid and Weiner has announced plans to challenge Nancy Pelosi for her San Francisco seat in the House, state Democrats are uninterested in disarming the rhetoric of antisemitism that has been weaponized to suppress dissent.

“I wore a mask because our campus administration has been complicit in systematically suppressing the voices of protesters by using antisemitism,” according to a Doe Library protester who was granted anonymity for fear of retaliation. “Funnily enough, wearing the mask might get me arrested.”