The decision on Jackson v. Landgraf to overturn the health and wellness referendum was founded in the argument that ASUC President Connor Landgraf overstepped his presidential authority by using an executive order to get the referendum on the spring 2013 election ballot after the established filing date.

Associate Justice Scott Lara expressed concern that students only had 18 days to become properly informed about a referendum that would initially cost each student $40 per semester, a cost that would rise until reaching a maximum $287 per semester from 2042-46. The ASUC bylaws state that the president may only issue executive orders that are “necessary to maintain the functioning of the ASUC until the Senate can meet again.”

The justices believed that the circumstances surrounding the referendum did not require an immediate solution.

“Problems that only deal with the comfort of the student body, such as a larger area to work out or newer machines, cannot be an urgent problem that the Executive Order can be used to solve,” reads the decision.

Only five of the nine Judicial Council justices participated in the decision. Chief Justice Suneeta Israni was not involved. No member of the Judicial Council could be reached for comment on this story.

The constitutionality of another executive order that Landgraf issued to ensure students’ continued unlimited access to AC Transit bus passes — the Class Pass —  was not challenged.

Attorney General Hinh Tran, who represented the ASUC in the case and defended the referendum’s constitutionality, took issue with the procedures of the case. He said that the decision was made in summary judgment — a tactic usually reserved for the necessity of expediency — which allows the justices to make a private decision without hearing oral argument. Additionally, Tran said that the decision was made public only one minute before the deadline for an appeal.

“(The Judicial Council’s opinion) does not address the arguments I made in the trial briefs,” Tran said.

Student Action Senator Mihir Deo, who played a major role in including language in the referendum that would serve the needs of disabled students, concurred that the executive order was unconstitutional but said that the council did not consider external factors that caused Landgraf to miss the filing deadline.

“I feel that this is one of those situations where you withhold something unconstitutional, but you’re also withholding democracy a little bit as well,” Deo said.

The health and wellness referendum has already been placed on the 2014 ballot, giving students close to a year to weigh the benefits of new facilities against the fee increases that would pay for them.

Contact Jeremy Gordon at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC Judicial Council nullifies health and wellness referendum appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The ASUC Judicial Council backtracked on its previous decision to approve a settlement of charges against controversial divestment bill SB 160 on Saturday.

On Friday, the Judicial Council voted in favor of the settlement, which would have removed clauses that petitioners had said were unconstitutional. They alleged that the bill had not been approved by the appropriate ASUC committees and was not passed by the necessary two-thirds vote.

The settlement removed any clauses that required the ASUC to divest its funds from companies associated with the Israeli military. The Judicial Council’s latest decision means the parts of the bill that were removed will be restored.

The original charges will now go to trial, and the Judicial Council will rule on the validity of the charges. The trial is scheduled for Wednesday at 11 a.m. at a location to be determined.

In an email obtained by The Daily Californian, Judicial Council Chief Justice Suneeta Israni said the settlement was reversed because the negotiators did not have the authority to modify a previously passed bill. According to the email, the original decision to accept the settlement was based on the impression that 11 senators officially voted to pass the post-settlement version of the bill.  In reality, that figure came only from a straw poll taken by ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran, the chief negotiator in the settlement, to gauge support for reaching the settlement.

The Judicial Council issued a gag order around 8 p.m. Saturday, demanding silence on the case from all parties involved. Last Monday, the Council also issued a gag order on the case surrounding alleged election law violations by External Affairs Vice President-elect Safeena Mecklai. According to a high-ranking official within the ASUC, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of disciplinary action, gag orders have traditionally only been used to protect witnesses and defendants from possibly injurious information before a decision has been made.

However, the Judicial Council’s Rules of Procedure do not clarify or limit the circumstances under which the Council can issue such an order.

Two ASUC officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the gag order, were sharply critical — even angered — at what they called the Council’s freehanded use of the gag orders, which the officials said was an overreach of the Council’s authority.

In an email sent to Israni before the gag order took effect, SQUELCH! party chair and former Daily Cal columnist Noah Ickowitz expressed his displeasure with the Judicial Council’s handling of the case as well as the decision to rescind the settlement.

“I need to express my deep sadness in both your procedure and transparency,” Ickowitz told Israni in the email. “The whirlwind of having so many verdicts in the span of 24 hours has taken a toll on me and I believe has tarnished my vision of a system I used to appreciate.”

Neither Israni nor Associate Justice Stephanie Chamberlain could be reached for comment for this story.

Like with the case surrounding the health and wellness referendum, the Judicial Council planned to decide the SB 160 case by summary judgement, in which the council can make a decision without the participation of involved parties and without hearing oral argument. According to the Rules of Procedure, the council may issue a summary judgement “in the extreme event the Council does not believe a hearing will provide any substance to the controversy brought to its attention.”

The council eventually reversed its intention to issue a summary judgement, reverting to the original plan to hold a trial.

Contact Jeremy Gordon at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC Judicial Council rescinds decision on divestment bill settlement appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The settlement calls for the removal of clauses in SB 160 that dealt with ASUC investments and appropriations. It effectively thwarts the ASUC’s effort to divest its own funds from companies involved in Israel’s alleged “human rights abuses” against Palestinians, leaving a purely symbolic piece of legislation that requests similar divestment by the UC Regents.

The charges that brought about the settlement claimed that the bill was not approved by the proper committees and should have been passed by a two-thirds vote instead of a simple majority.

“I think SB 160 has lost a lot of weight through this settlement,” said Noah Ickowitz, SQUELCH! party chair and a former columnist for The Daily Californian. “The bill that passed is now a completely different bill once these clauses are stricken. It loses almost all its authority. I hope the public understands that this is no longer ASUC divestment.”

Chancellor Robert Birgeneau said in a public statement that the passage of SB 160 would in no way affect the investment policies of the university.

The settlement, which is pending approval by the Judicial Council, was reached between Attorney General Hinh Tran — representing the ASUC — and Ickowitz and former external affairs vice president Joey Freeman. Tran, who was tasked with defending the ASUC in the matter, conceded the legitimacy of the constitutionally grounded charges against SB 160 but added that in his opinion, the charges did not have enough merit to warrant nullifying the bill.

“It’s a sign on cooperation and compromise on a very difficult bill,” Tran said.

Student Action Senator George Kadifa, who authored the bill, disagreed that the settlement watered down the bill in any way, emphasizing that the purpose of the bill has been largely symbolic since its inception.

“The settlement changes very, very little about the bill,” Kadifa said. “A part of the reason (we were willing to compromise) was that the ASUC wasn’t invested in any of these companies. That wasn’t the main focus. All language calling for the UC Regents to divest is still in the bill.”

While the settlement represented a compromise between the parties involved, it was not necessarily a consensus of the affected communities.

Despite being on the opposite side of the divestment debate, Jewish Student Union President Daphna Torbati agreed that the settlement did not really change the essence of the original bill.

“Although this is definitely a change in the right direction, these changes are largely inconsequential, as the bill still contains the same sentiments that ignore much of the Israeli narrative,” she said.

Both Tran and Ickowitz said they believe that the settlement reflects an important ability to compromise on an issue that has been divisive. They echoed a sentiment similar to that of ASUC President Connor Landgraf when he announced that he would not veto the bill in an effort to expedite the campus’s healing process.

“Not going through a hearing definitely helps campus climate,” Ickowitz said. “We really don’t need a trial right now, and the settlement avoided a big public spectacle. I’m sure there are people in both communities left unsatisfied, but in this case, I’m sure it was the right decision.”

Contact Jeremy Gordon at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post Settlement of charges against divestment bill SB 160 to remove major clauses appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The town hall aimed to explore the feasibility of state prison divestment for addressing social issues and increasing the availability of state funds for other uses. The event was organized by Cal Berkeley Democrats, the Northern California branch of the ACLU and UC Berkeley junior Obai Rambo.

Rambo described the forum as less of an attempt to advocate for a particular agenda and more of an effort to inform students so they can make policy judgments for themselves.

“I view the town hall as a chance for students to take charge and get the knowledge they need so that we can build on student movements and lead actions instead of being reactionary,” he said.

While Rambo sought to facilitate discussion, ACLU representatives Caitlin O’Neill and David Moss supported more specific policies aimed at reducing the prison system’s burden on state coffers. According to the ACLU, California taxpayers pay an average of $50,000 per inmate every year.

O’Neill said that sentence reform should be an important part of any prison reform. She was also critical of monetary bail policies in California, saying they were discriminatory against people of the poor and working classes and suggesting abandoning the policy altogether.

Moss, who has been in and out of California prisons on 14 different drug charges in what he called “a struggle with his personal demons,” characterized the size of California’s current criminal justice budget as a waste of money.

“I got treatment,” he said. “I was treated as a criminal. The war on drugs is an abject, abysmal failure.”

Attendees also discussed the trend of growing prison spending and diminishing public funding for education. Graduate student Joshua Green compared the current climate of California politics to ordering pizza in a residence hall room. He said special interest groups like the prison guard union were like big, athletic rugby players who could muscle their way to a slice, while financially strapped students — like a smaller, weaker computer programmer — would get left out.

Tony Thurmond, a former Richmond City Council member and a current candidate for the California State Assembly, said efforts to increase expectations of success were vital to keeping students away from crime. He said Californians have had multiple opportunities to decide on propositions that would improve the state’s public education system but that “manipulative messages” by special interest groups caused them to fail.

The town hall did not end with a specific plan of action. Nonetheless, Rambo said he saw it as a positive step forward, part of a larger movement only just under way.

Jeremy Gordon covers higher education. Contact him at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post ACLU holds town hall meeting on prison divestment appeared first on The Daily Californian.

After an initial settlement, charges against ASUC President Connor Landgraf’s executive order that put the health and wellness referendum on the spring 2013 ballot have been refiled.

Cooperative Movement Senator Jorge Pacheco opted to reopen the case against Landgraf around noon Thursday and said he filed the new charges around 6:30 p.m. The new charges request that the ASUC Judicial Council overturn Landgraf’s executive order, an action that would effectively annul the referendum.

The health and wellness referendum seeks to use student funds to build new fitness and wellness centers on campus.

The student body passed the health and wellness referendum by a slim margin in a vote of 6836-6139.

In his legal briefs, Pacheco argues that Landgraf “overstepped his authority” and “damaged the integrity and process of the Spring 2013 ASUC Elections,” and he asks the Judicial Council to “restore the balance of power of the ASUC infringed by (Landgraf’s executive order).”

The new charges come shortly after Landgraf received a letter from Pacheco offering to settle the case if Landgraf agreed not to veto the controversial divestment bill SB 160, which passed in the senate 11-9.

The original charges against Landgraf, which were filed by Student Action Senator Mihir Deo jointly with Pacheco, were dropped when the Judicial Council threw out a proposed settlement between the two parties. This original settlement included concessions that the new center have two trained physical therapists and two disabled students on its advisory board. The agreement borne from those settlement negotiations will still be part of the referendum.

Deo said that he and Pacheco had very different reasons for filing the original charges against Landgraf’s executive order. While Deo sought to secure additional concessions for the new fitness centers favored by the disabled community, Pacheco was concerned about the constitutionality of the way the referendum was put on the ballot. The memorandum of understanding does not address issues of constitutionality but did meet Deo’s demands.

ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran says that he is confident Landgraf would prevail in court should the case go to trial.

Contact Jeremy Gordon at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post Senator refiles charges regarding health and wellness referendum appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Landgraf said he received the letter, written by Cooperative Movement Senator Jorge Pacheco, around 4 p.m. Tuesday. In the letter, Pacheco stated that he would settle the suit against Landgraf’s executive order to put the health and wellness referendum on the spring 2013 ballot if Landgraf opted not to veto SB 160. A settlement was ultimately reached on the suit against Landgraf’s executive order around 5:30 p.m. that day.

Landgraf said that he had already made the decision not to veto SB 160 at the time Pacheco slipped the handwritten letter into his office. Landgraf communicated in a text message to Pacheco that he was “disappointed and shocked” by the letter and immediately sent it to ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran to make it clear that Landgraf’s decision regarding SB 160 was not influenced by Pacheco’s offer.

“By not vetoing, I will settle,” the letter reads. “You should make this decision on your own conscience, but this is something I will do if you stand behind your senators and demonstrate everything that would appease any and all of my concerns.”

Pacheco and Student Action Senator Mihir Deo are the original filers of the suit against Landgraf. Deo, however, said he was not aware of the letter and was taken aback when he heard about it.

“When I saw (the letter), I thought I was personally taken for a fool,” Deo said. “The fact that he used something important to all students to leverage a political opinion of his was very disappointing and unacceptable.”

The settlement followed previous indication that Pacheco was ready to take the suit to trial.

Tran said in an email that “while President Landgraf and I did attempt to negotiate a settlement that would address Senator Pacheco’s concerns, he indicated to us that he would only be satisfied by an annulment of the referendum.”

Pacheco said he did not seek to exert political capital to influence Landgraf’s decision.

According to Pacheco, the letter to Landgraf was simply an effort to explain his thoughts on SB 160, and he was not trying to influence the president’s decision on whether to veto the bill.

“I’m not trying to say that settling wouldn’t happen if he vetoed,” Pacheco said. “I just wanted to engage a conversation of executive authority, and that’s basically it. Connor wouldn’t let that affect his decision.”

Tran said that his office is still looking into the legality of such a letter and that it may violate a bylaw. He was not aware of a precedent for this sort of situation.

Read the full text of the letter below:

Contact Jeremy Gordon at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC senator sends letter offering Landgraf deal for no veto appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The heated debate began Wednesday evening and carried on for 10 hours, continuing into Thursday. Anna Head Alumnae Hall overflowed with hundreds of UC Berkeley students, faculty and community members engaging in a contentious debate regarding the bill, SB 160.

SB 160, authored by Student Action Senator George Kadifa, calls the UC system a “complicit third party” in Israel’s “illegal occupation and ensuing human rights abuses” and seeks the divestment of more than $14 million in ASUC and UC assets from Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard and Cement Roadstone Holdings. According to the bill, these companies provide equipment, materials and technology to the Israeli military, including bulldozers and biometric identification systems.

The final vote, which occurred just before 5:30 a.m., was met with cheering, stomping and cries of joy by supporters of the bill.

Independent Senator and bill co-sponsor Sadia Saifuddin said she saw the vote as the culmination of years of struggle.

“Tonight is not about corporations,” she said. “It’s about asking ourselves before we go to sleep whether our money is going toward the destruction of homes, toward the erection of a wall. I am a working student. And I don’t want one cent of my money to go toward fueling the occupation of my brothers and sisters.”

But across the aisle, opponents of the bill were silent, absorbing the defeat with dismay.

SQUELCH! Senator Jason Bellet decried the bill for ignoring an important side in the issue.

“If we walk away with anything tonight, it’s that this conflict is nuanced,” Bellet said. “But divestment and the language set forth in SB 160 frames Israel as the sole aggressor. This is more than just divesting from three companies. Divestment is undoubtedly taking a side in the conflict.”

The vote was emotional for senators as well as spectators. At least three senators broke down in tears as they gave their final comments following the vote.

Dozens of community members spoke at the beginning of the meeting, pleading their cases to the senate late into the night.

Supporters of the divestment bill — which included Muslim and Jewish students alike, as well as members of other campus communities — said they opposed the ASUC and university’s financial involvement with companies that benefit from alleged human rights violations perpetrated by the Israeli government.

“There are few experiences more traumatic than losing your home or being forced out of the place you call home,” said UC Berkeley junior Kamyar Jarahzadeh. “This university’s money — our money — is complicit in the deprivation of human rights.”

Pulitzer Prize-winning author Alice Walker, who said she had visited the Gaza Strip, was present at the meeting and publicly voiced her support for SB 160.

Following the senate’s decision on SB 160, Chancellor Robert Birgeneau released a statement Thursday afternoon expressing disapproval of the bill’s passage.

“It is my personal opinion that targeting a single nation or state in this highly complex world is not appropriate and does little to advance the cause of peace and coexistence,” Birgeneau said in a statement. “Ultimately, we believe that engaging in dialogue on these difficult issues is the best hope that we have for achieving peace.”

In his statement, Birgeneau also revealed that UCPD is currently investigating an incident on Sproul Plaza in which a student who was handing out pro-divestment fliers was struck in the face. UCPD Lt. Eric Tejada confirmed in an interview with The Daily Californian that the incident to which Birgeneau referred is the battery that occurred on April 1, when a student tabling on Sproul was punched and knocked to the ground.

On Wednesday night, the senate was also set to vote on SB 158, an opposing bill to SB 160, but the bill was tabled following the long discussion of SB 160. SB 158 “seek(s) investment opportunities that strengthen Israeli-Palestinian cooperation in pursuit of a two state resolution to the conflict” rather than divestment.

Many members of the Jewish community decried SB 160’s targeted divestment from Israel as choosing one side of the conflict at the expense of the other when suffering has occurred on both.

“Divestment does nothing to better the lives of Palestinians,” said political science professor Ron Hassner. “It seeks to undermine, harm and destroy and offers no vision of an Israeli-Palestinian future.”

Opponents of divestment also reminded the senate of the hostile campus climate Jewish students faced after the 2010 divestment attempt. Many said they felt alienated and unwelcome and warned that the passage of SB 160 could affect Jewish students’ decisions to come to UC Berkeley.

“We will take home that an amendment asking for a two-state solution was failed,” said SQUELCH! party chair and former Daily Cal columnist Noah Ickowitz. “We will take home that an amendment asking for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state was failed. We will take home that this body takes divestment as a weapon of choice when that is not the only weapon in our arsenal.”

Although the bill passed, ASUC President Connor Landgraf has the option to veto it. According to the ASUC Constitution, the president may veto an action by the senate within seven days of the decision. A two-thirds vote by the senate is needed to override a presidential veto.

“It was a very close decision, and clearly, it’s an issue in which our campus is divided about,” Landgraf said in an interview. “I will be thinking about (the vote) and deciding on that.”

In 2010, the senate passed a similar divestment bill that was later vetoed by then-president Will Smelko. In the weeks that followed, the senate failed to reach a two-thirds vote to override the veto.

Daphne Chen contributed to this report.

Contact Jeremy Gordon and Daphne Chen at newsdesk@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC Senate passes Israeli divestment bill SB 160, 11-9 appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The bill in support of divestment, SB 160, authored by Student Action Senator George Kadifa, calls for targeted divestment of ASUC and UC assets from any companies that provide support to Israel’s military in the Palestinian territories or contribute to the building, maintenance or economic development of Israeli settlements on the West Bank.

The committee meeting, which continued into the early morning, was attended by at least 100 community members, many of whom spoke both against and in favor of targeted divestment from Israel. Many senators who do not sit on the the six-person committee were also in attendance, as were External Affairs Vice President Shahryar Abbasi and Executive Vice President Justin Sayarath.

Abbasi said at the meeting that divestment enabled the ASUC to stay neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by ending financial ties to either side.

“We should not be complicit in violations against human rights,” he said. “By divesting our funds, we are saying that we will not support one side or the other.”

SB 160 targets more than $14 million from the UC Retirement Fund and the UC General Endowment to be divested from three companies: Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard and Cement Roadstone Holdings. According to ASUC Finance Officer Amir Chini, this represents a tiny fraction of the total capital available to these companies — too little to realistically expect the companies to make any strategic changes.

An opposing bill discussed at the meeting, SB 158, calls for the ASUC to instruct managers of its funds to “seek investment opportunities that strengthen Israeli-Palestinian cooperation” as a constructive alternative to divestment. The bill was authored by authored by Student Action Senator Rafi Lurie, former External Affairs Vice President Joey Freeman,  SQUELCH! Senator Jason Bellet, SQUELCH! Chair and former Daily Cal columnist Noah Ickowitz and former Student Action Senator Aviv Gilboa.

Community supporters of SB 158 emphasized that divestment was not conducive to a negotiated peace or the two-state solution and would only cause division  and alienation of campus communities. Many Jewish and pro-Israel students said they felt alienated and unsafe on campus after a similar attempt to divest from Israel in 2010 brought national media attention to campus.

“What we want to do is use our political advocacy to promote a two-state solution,” Bellet said. “That’s more impactful than divesting from four companies.”

The bill was heavily amended by the committee before being passed for consideration by the senate.

Lurie took issue with the amendments to SB 158, which included the striking of clauses that compared SB 160 to the international movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel.

“Our community feels like our voices were silenced on this issue,” Lurie said. “These amendments are destroying the spirit of the bill.”

Freeman expressed that SB 160 harmfully blamed only one side of a complex historical conflict. “Tonight is not about valuing one side of this conflict over another,” he said. “There is very real and serious suffering on both sides of the conflict. But SB 160 is a one-sided narrative that places the burden entirely on Israel.”

Senior Shir Davidovic recalled the rise in anti-semitism that coincided with the last divestment effort, during which swastikas were drawn on the walls of Clark Kerr and her friends were spat on because they were Jewish.

‘The language of the BDS movement has anti-semitic undertones,” Davidovic said. “I considered transferring, and many of my friends did too. I know this is not the campus climate you want.”

Supporters of SB 158 also argued that it was an appropriate way to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would avoid the tensions and hostility that arose after the ASUC Senate considered the similar bill passed in 2010. That bill led to heated debates, which drew hundreds of students to senate meetings and brought international attention to campus. It was passed by the senate but later vetoed by then-president Will Smelko. The senate failed to garner the two-thirds majority vote necessary to override the veto.

Bellet said that SB 158 sought to encourage diplomacy and a more productive conversation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“While Israel’s steps should be criticized, there are other ways we can address this issue that will be more impactful on an international scale,” Bellet said.

Contact Jeremy Gordon at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post Divestment bill to proceed to senate floor after approval by committee appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The bill — which appeared on the agenda for Wednesday’s senate meeting and was authored by Student Action Senator George Kadifa — calls for divestment of ASUC and UC assets from any companies that provide support to Israel’s military in Palestine or contribute to the building, maintenance or economic development of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories.

Student Action Senator and presidential candidate Rafi Lurie has authored an opposing bill — also introduced at Wednesday night’s meeting — that calls for the ASUC to instruct managers of its funds to “seek investment opportunities that strengthen Israeli-Palestinian cooperation” rather than divesting funds.

Both bills will go to the senate’s Committee on University and External Affairs for consideration on Monday, after which it may be moved to a vote.

Another bill, similar to the one authored by Kadifa, attempted to demand divestment from Israel in 2010. It led to heated debates, which drew hundreds of students to senate meetings and brought international attention to campus. This bill was passed by the senate but then vetoed by then-president Will Smelko. The senate failed to gather the two-thirds majority vote necessary to override the veto.

The bill authored by Kadifa calls the university a “complicit third party” in Israel’s “illegal occupation and resulting human rights abuses.” It identifies and seeks divestment of at least $14 million in UC Retirement Program and General Endowment assets from companies such as Caterpillar and Hewlett-Packard.

“Our campus climate is already divisive because right now we are profiting from human rights violations inflicted on our own students,” Kadifa said. “By refusing to acknowledge injustice in human rights, we are diminishing our humanity.”

UC Berkeley Jewish Student Union President Daphna Torbati said the bill would make pro-Israel students feel unwelcome.

“I feel like the main issue is that potential Jewish students will not feel comfortable on this campus,” Torbati said. “It makes me personally feel uncomfortable.”

ASUC President Connor Landgraf said he hopes not to see a fallout between campus communities similar to what occurred after the previous divestment battle, but he said he is hopeful the bill could foster discussion and the reconciliation of strained relationships this time.

“It’s up to the communities involved to maintain a civil discussion on education and building relationships rather than tearing them down,” he said. “That’s the only way we can have constructive progress.”

Jeremy Gordon covers higher education. Contact him at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC Senate to revisit Israel divestment appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The bill — which appeared on the agenda for Wednesday’s senate meeting — calls for divestment of ASUC and UC assets from any companies that provide support to Israel’s military in Palestine or contribute to the building, maintenance or economic development of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories.

The bill will go to the senate’s External Affairs Committee for consideration, after which senators may call for a vote.

A similar bill attempting to divest from Israel in 2010 led to heated debates, drawing sometimes hundreds to senate meetings and bringing international attention to campus. This bill was passed but then vetoed by then president Will Smelko. The senate failed to gather the majority two-thirds vote necessary to override the veto.

The current bill, authored by Student Action Senator George Kadifa, calls the UC a “complicit third party” in Israel’s “illegal occupation and resulting human rights abuses.” It identifies and seeks divestment from at least $14 million in UC Retirement Program and General Endowment assets in companies such as Caterpillar and Hewlett Packard.

Student Action senator and presidential candidate Rafi Lurie has authored an opposing bill also to be introduced at Wednesday night’s meeting that calls for the ASUC to instruct managers of its funds to “seek investment opportunities that strengthen Israeli-Palestinian cooperations,” rather than divesting funds.

Read the full text of the bills below.

Contact Jeremy Gordon at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC Senate bill urges divestment from Israel appeared first on The Daily Californian.