There’s a case of apparent employment discrimination at UCLA that should put to rest once and for all the spurious idea that the current campus battles are about mere “free speech.”

For over a year now we’ve been subjected to the whinging of the “pro-Palestine” crowds who are physically harassing Jews on campus while claiming their speech rights are infringed upon any time their actions bring a whiff of consequences. But aside from the violence deployed against Jews, there’s been evidence of professional discrimination—at state-funded institutions, no less.

The latest and most illuminating example comes from UCLA, where a newly filed complaint alleges that the college Cultural Affairs Commission has in place a policy of anti-Jewish bias in its hiring process. Bella Brannon, editor of the Jewish student newspaper Ha’am, filed the petition with the Undergraduate Students Association Council (USAC) Judicial Board earlier this week.

The crux of the allegation is that Alicia Verdugo, head of the Cultural Affairs Commission, told staffers not to hire Jewish applicants. Specifically, she told subordinates, “please do your research when you look at applicants” because “lots of zionists (sic) are applying.” However, the directive was not Israel-specific; applicants were being rejected after having identified themselves as Jews unrelated to anything regarding Israel or the war in Gaza. Finally, staffers were told that at an upcoming retreat a “no hire list”—that is, an anti-Jewish blacklist—would be shared.

According to Ha’am, “every student who indicated their Jewish identity in their applications for Cultural Affairs Commissioner (CAC) staff was rejected.” One rejected applicant, for example, answered a question on the application about an issue of importance by noting that “as a Jewish student at UCLA, it is imperative that I have the right to express my identity.” Another rejected applicant had mentioned Judaism when asked about attendance at the staff retreat, explaining that they are Sabbath observant.

A CAC hiring document obtained by Ha’am allegedly says: “We reserve the right to remove any staff member who dispels antiBlackness, colorism, racism, white supremacy, zionism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, misogyny, ableism, and any/all other hateful/bigoted ideologies.”

Although “dispels” is obviously the wrong word there, the intent is clear. As is the fact that “Zionism” is listed as disqualifying but “anti-Semitism” is not.

There are two important lessons here.

The first is that we know this attitude prevails on campuses and in institutions across America. The difference being alleged here is that the bigotry was codified. It is close to impossible that there aren’t such paper trails at other schools as well.

Even without those paper trails, there is no doubt such discrimination is happening. Civil-rights violations of Jewish students have been found by courts already, and harassment and exclusion of Jewish students and faculty in programs with direct bearing on their professional futures—graduate programs, faculty-management directives, for example—have been reported since before Oct. 7, 2023. And let’s remember that some Jewish students have asked to finish their class requirements remotely because they do not feel safe on campus; it beggars belief that such a student has anything like a fair shot at attaining his professional goals through that same campus.

It all amounts to a taxpayer-funded system of erasing visible Jews from public life.

The second lesson is a familiar one: Everyone knows what these activists mean when they say “Zionist.” Shops with signs that say “Zionists not welcome” are actually displaying signs that say “Jews not welcome”—and no one, but no one, is foolish enough to believe otherwise, no matter what they say.

Remarkably, college students and administrators are starting to give up on even trying to gaslight the public. If someone says “don’t hire this person because they keep Shabbat and therefore are a Zionist,” they are not making a political argument; they are explicitly expressing an anti-Semitic hiring policy. And if there are not consequences for blatant policies that violate the basic civil rights of Jewish Americans, those policies will only get more brazen and codified. The complaint against UCLA’s cultural commission is not a glimpse into the future; it is an illustration of the present.