POLITICS UC Berkeley provides Trump administration list of 160 names in antisemitism investigation ByCornell Barnard KGO logo Friday, September 12, 2025 10:53PM UC Berkeley provides list of names in antisemitism investigation UC Berkeley is providing the Trump administration with a list of names and their potential connection to reports of alleged antisemitism on campus. BERKELEY, Calif. (KGO) -- In the East Bay, UC Berkeley is providing the Trump administration with the names of more than 100 students, faculty and staff, about their potential connection to reports of alleged antisemitism on campus. The investigation by U.S. Department of Education and office of Civil Rights is one of many federal probes targeting universities across the country. "I think I was a bit startled by it, somewhat flummoxed," said Daniel Solomon. UC Berkeley graduate student Daniel Solomon said he was surprised recently when he got this email from the university's office of legal affairs, which said in part: "Your name was included in reports as part of the documents provided by the office of general council (OGC) to the office of civil rights (OCR) for its investigation. These documents contained information about reports or responses related to alleged antisemitic incidents." "I think I was part of the email list, because I have been a vocal opponent of what I call the 'Campus Antisemitic Movement,' which is called the 'Palestine Solidarity Movement,' so I imagine some of that landed on the radar of investigators," Solomon said. MORE: UC Berkeley designated as 'hostile campus' by Muslim civil rights group: Here's why symbol 00:00 02:00 Read More In an attempt to comply with an investigation into alleged campus antisemitism by the Department of Education and Office of Civil Rights, UC Berkeley released the names of about 160 students, staff and faculty and their potential connection to reports of antisemitism. I'm a statement, a university spokesperson said: "Last week, we issued notices to individuals whose names were included in the documents. We are committed to transparency and supporting our campus community while complying with federal investigations." The Trump administration believes school officials nationwide are doing little to stop discrimination against Jewish students. UC Berkeley Students for Justice in Palestine took to Instagram this week, posting: "It is obvious that the department of education and UC Berkeley are using the very office meant to protect civil rights as a trojan horse to silence anyone who condemns the genocide of the Palestinian people." MORE: UC Berkeley chancellor testifies in front of House committee over antisemitism The Bay Area chapter of the American Jewish Committee says all students have the right to feel safe on campus. "AJC research has shown 40% of American Jews 18 to 29 have been the target of antisemitism in the last year, and moreover college students, 35% of them report experiencing antisemitism at least one time on a college campus," said Seth Brysk from American Jewish Committee. It's unclear where the federal probe will go, and what consequences it may bring.
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
-
-
-
-
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment