We call on Julio Frenk to immediately retract his statements on the UCLA Law symposium

The two statements (Sep 11 and Sep 17) of UCLA’s chancellor Julio Frenk on the “25 Years After 9/11: Reimagining Freedom, Justice, and Security” symposium at the UCLA School of Law are an embarrassment to all of us who care about academic freedom, fairness, speaking the truth based on evidence, and being accountable for one’s statements. These are basic values that all scholars hold. We believe that colleges and universities have the responsibility to protect these values and transmit them to future generations. It is alarming that Julio Frenk either does not understand them or chooses not to follow them.

We call on Julio Frenk to retract his statements immediately. Each day that his statements are not retracted brings further shame to UCLA and harm to the greater academic community.

Below are six reasons why.

1. Before publicly stating that a university “does not endorse” a symposium organized by its faculty, the chancellor should talk to faculty colleagues who organized the event to understand its contents and purpose and take at least minimal efforts to find out what was discussed. 

The symposium featured leading experts who expressed deep respect for the loss of life on September 11, 2001 and as a result of the subsequent “War on Terror.” These events fundamentally changed jurisprudence in the United States and are as germane and relevant today as they were twenty-five years ago.

Frenk did not contact his faculty colleagues who organized the symposium before making his statement that UCLA “does not endorse” it, and to this day has refused to meet with them or respond to their emails directly.

Frenk did not attend the symposium, or as far as we know, talk to anyone who attended the symposium. No criticism of the symposium has referenced a specific fact or statement made by anyone during the symposium.

2. By including “We reject antisemitism and terrorism in all their forms” while saying the university does not endorse the symposium, the chancellor created a false association. Before generating such an association, the chancellor should confirm whether it has any factual basis, and should realize that such an association baselessly places his colleagues at risk. 

Frenk’s statement sends the message to faculty, staff, and students that if they host speakers or address topics that might be critiqued, he may make a public statement with no factual basis, thereby legitimizing those criticisms based on his own partiality. For example, Julio Frenk did not make a statement saying that UCLA did not endorse the public lecture on campus of James Percival, general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security, a government organization that has lawlessly arrested and detained thousands of people, causing immense human suffering.

Because of the chancellor’s statements, colleagues may be deterred from putting on programming about important but controversial public matters because of the possibility that he will amplify irresponsible media attacks against them.

3. After generating this association, the chancellor should not disingenuously claim that by doing so, he “did not criticize the School of Law.” When responding to claims that a symposium deserves criticism because it includes an attorney defending an unpopular defendant, the chancellor should be able to state that in our democracy, all people deserve legal representation. 

Julio Frenk’s statement legitimized the mischaracterization of our colleagues on a national stage and legitimized a deeply anti-democratic idea. Any suggestion that a person’s legal counsel should be accountable for their client’s actions should be rejected outright. 

4. When making public statements, the chancellor should follow university policy recently adopted to protect academic freedom.

Frenk’s statement directly violates university policy adopted in 2024 which states, “UCLA’s chancellor… should not make public statements on societal, public and political matters, unless those matters directly affect the university’s ability to support a research and educational environment where free expression thrives,” because “such institutional statements can imply a false sense of unanimity about a given topic, stifle the free exchange of ideas, and risk making parts of our diverse community feel silenced or unheard.” His statement stifles academic freedom, which is exactly what the 2024 policy tries to protect.

5. When publicly stating that one faculty colleague has suffered losses and deserves “to be heard,” the chancellor should also acknowledge that many of our colleagues have experienced enormous personal losses as a result of wars and geopolitical events. Not doing so creates an ethos of partiality.

Acknowledging the losses of all of our community members does not diminish the importance of any one person’s losses.

6. When faculty colleagues write to express their concerns about the chancellor’s statements, he should respond to them directly, not through intermediaries, and be willing to meet with them.

Meeting and talking directly with your own colleagues about their concerns is a basic requirement of respect, common decency, and a willingness to be held accountable.

One would expect that all of our colleagues share these basic principles. It is shocking that UCLA’s leader, who claims to speak for an entire university community, violates all of them. During a time when our universities are under attack by government officials who make baseless and disingenuous claims, university leadership should not cooperate in perpetuating their falsehoods.