As the sun rises over downtown Santa Cruz, a group of students and community members begin gathering at the clocktower. Organizers serve breakfast and coffee to mitigate the chilly 36-degree air. Then, a megaphone turns on.
Laaila Irshad, a UC Santa Cruz student, speaks of her experience being arrested, then subsequently banned from campus on May 31, when police from all across Northern California raided the Gaza Solidarity Encampment. She is one of the plaintiffs in a case suing UCSC for the rollout of campus bans.
Plaintiff Laaila Irshad addresses the crowd gathered at the clock tower in downtown Santa Cruz. Photo by Kyle James Allemand.
“When I was arrested, I had university housing because I had a job on campus, and I was unable to fulfill that job, and I lost housing right away,” Irshad said. “They would not provide any support even though they continue to say that they do, even throughout the lawsuit. I ended up failing all my classes because there [was] again, no support, and I lost my housing. I lost a place to eat, and I was just told to figure it out.”
An hour later, on Nov. 19, the Santa Cruz County Court would hear her case for the first time. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) represented the plaintiffs, Elio Ellutzi, Irshad, and Christine Hong, two UCSC students and faculty respectively, who were arrested in the May 31 encampment raid. The defendants were UC administrators, including Chancellor Cynthia Larive, Executive Vice Chancellor Lori Kletzer, and the regents of the University of California.
In September, the ACLU sued UCSC for illegal use of the California Penal Code Section 626.4 for said campus bans on May 31. The penal code gives the chief authoritative officer of a campus, like Chancellor Larive, authority to ban students from campus for up to two weeks. ACLU argued that UC administration illegally forwent due process when banning arrested students from campus by not conducting individual hearings.
Student protestors alongside community organizers gathered outside Santa Cruz County Superior Court to attend and support the impending hearing. Photos by Kyle James Allemand.
Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) at UCSC organized the rally and announced a call to action to “pack the courts” on their Instagram the day before. Starting at 7:40 a.m., speakers who were also arrested May 31 addressed the crowd of around 40 students gathered for the rally.
Christine Hong, a professor of critical race and ethnic studies and literature, also addressed the crowd. As the second plaintiff for the case, she spoke of the history behind the Section 626.4 that UCSC used to arrest and ban protestors from campus.
Plaintiff and UCSC professor Christine Hong addresses the crowd at the clock tower in downtown Santa Cruz. Photo by Kyle James Allemand.
In response to student-led Vietnam War protests, former President Ronald Reagan created and enforced the penal code to suppress dissent on college campuses. In 1973, students pushed back against the ban and sued in a case known as Braxton v. Municipal Court. As a result of the suit, it is now required to have individualized hearings before a university issues campus bans, unless the person presents a substantial and material threat to people or property.
“Whenever this government authorizes imperialist aggression abroad, it simultaneously prepares for dissent,” Hong said. “It simultaneously prepares for destruction and refusal at home, and it approaches, specifically, college campuses as key battlegrounds in a domestic war front.”
15 minutes before the hearing started, students began walking from the clocktower to the courthouse, signs in hand.
Community members display handmade signs toward ongoing traffic. Photos 1, 3 by Cecilia Schutz. Photo 2 by Kyle James Allemand.
Raven Fonseca Jensen, a UCSC student who attended the rally and court hearing, was also arrested on May 31.
“We’re showing up today mostly just to try to be more of a thorn in the university’s side, but the only thing that they’ll really listen to is the loss of profits,” she said. “If a lawsuit like this threatens money, then the university might be like ‘Damn, this is a pain in the ass.’”
Predisposition Hearing
In the lawsuit, the ACLU argued that UCSC violated the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the state constitution, which offer protections for free speech, assembly, and due process.
They also filed a preliminary injunction for “declaratory and injunctive relief for 626.4” violations. This means, if the judge accepted the motion, UCSC would be prohibited from issuing pre-hearing campus bans, such as the ones implemented in May. This would also declare en masse bans from campus like those on May 31 as unlawful.
At least 70 students supporting the three plaintiffs of the case, some from the rally, filled the courtroom’s seats. Many of them had keffiyehs adorning their heads or shoulders.
Before official proceedings began, Judge Syda Kosofsky Cogliati, who was presiding over the hearing, disclosed to the court that she knew Chancellor Larive professionally “from being public officials.” Per the California Code of Judicial Ethics, judges must disclose on the record any information that might affect their impartiality.
ACLU Argues for Due Process
The primary argument presented by the ACLU attorneys representing the plaintiffs, Chessie Thacher and Thomas Seabaugh, reasserted a need for due process in future scenarios similar to the encampment sweep. They argued that UCSC did not make individualized determinations in banning the plaintiffs from campus, and failed to file reports substantiating the bans, as required by Section 626.4.
The basis of ACLU’s arguments was not to deny the legitimacy of the arrests, but to petition for more fair and individualized due process prior to en masse campus bans. The ACLU cited the Braxton ruling as precedent for UCSC’s inadequate enforcement of Section 626.4. According to Thacher, there was a lack of incontestable evidence proving all individuals arrested and banned on May 31 participated in unlawful acts that would significantly harm the university, outside of their constitutional rights to free speech and free expression.
“We’re asking for the university to follow the first amendment,” Thacher said. “That’s not harm.”
Thacher presented students’ inability to access campus resources, attend class during finals, and acquire necessary medical services as extreme consequences of the ban.
UCSC Argues for Safety
UCSC attempted to use evidence submitted past the stated deadline, Oct. 25. At noon the previous day, they submitted evidence of video clips, articles, and excerpts of social media posts.
Cogliati denied their request to use evidence from said late submission, unless the preapproved evidence was deemed inadequate in making a final decision.
Throughout the injunction hearing, Hailey Chen, UCSC’s primary lawyer, claimed the administrators’ responsibility to adequately ensure “on-campus safety” was their highest priority and concern in this hearing. UCSC argued that the encampment blockade involved in the May 31 arrests prevented accessibility to UCSC’s campus and, therefore, posed a great danger to fire safety. UCSC administration further stated that in an emergency evacuation, not being able to expeditiously ban students or faculty from campus could be detrimental to necessary evacuation procedures.
Chen cast further doubt on the feasibility of pre-ban hearings, after the ACLU proposed the idea. She said even if UCPD had the resources to do so, “it presumes that defendants would answer the questions truthfully.”
Final Decision and Closing Statements
After hearing both arguments, Cogliati denied the ACLU’s request for a preliminary injunction, based on a low “reasonable probability” that their side of the case would win in a trial.
She said the case for infringement of First Amendment rights “versus what the court feels is quite strong and undisputed evidence, that the harm to the defendants with respect to their ability to protect the safety of the entire UCSC community, that is really the strongest factor in this entire balancing process.”
The court also discussed the ACLU’s motion to void a search warrant on Irshad’s cellphone, which police seized during a fire drill at her dorm on Oct. 1 in a separate criminal investigation. Although Cogliati did not make a ruling on the motion, UCSC lawyers consented to not use evidence from Irshad’s phone in her civil case up until after the next hearing for the case.
A discovery hearing and further case management for the civil suit is scheduled for Jan. 10.
Despite the ongoing legal battles, Irshad is still optimistic.
“I’m grateful you guys are all out here and I hope we can continue to fight against this university and again, fight through Palestine as well because it’s supposed to be a long year,” she said. “When they ask the question: are we gonna keep protesting? The answer is an overwhelming yes.”