Investigative Report: Ex-DOJ Attorneys Criticize University of California Antisemitism Probes as Flawed and Politicized
A recent investigation by The Times reveals troubling insights from former Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys regarding their recent assignments related to allegations of antisemitism at various University of California (UC) campuses. Over several weeks of interviews, nine seasoned lawyers, collectively bringing decades of legal experience, described a series of chaotic and seemingly rushed directives that they believe compromised ethical standards and integrity.
Background of the Investigations
These attorneys were engaged to scrutinize claims of antisemitism across multiple UC campuses, including UCLA, UC Berkeley, and USC. However, all nine reported that their involvement was marked by irregularities from the outset, raising concerns about the credibility and objectivity of the investigations.
Allegations of Rushed and Politicized Processes
One of the most significant issues raised pertains to the preparation of a so-called “j-memo”—a memorandum intended as a legal justification for potential litigation. According to one attorney, they were instructed to draft this memo before any factual findings had been established, essentially predetermining the outcome without thorough investigation.
Furthermore, the attorneys criticized what they described as a public relations campaign that appeared to preempt the investigation’s findings. A press release dated February 28, 2025, announced that investigators would be visiting UC campuses affiliated with allegations of antisemitism, citing incidents dating back to October 2023. This preemptive announcement, the attorneys argue, suggested guilt before any substantive findings, a departure from standard legal practices.
Ethical Concerns and Resignations
All nine attorneys resigned from their roles before the investigations concluded. Multiple sources expressed concern that they were being asked to participate in actions that risked violating their ethical obligations as lawyers.
One attorney, who wished to remain anonymous due to fear of retaliation, remarked, “Never before in my time across multiple presidential administrations did we send out press releases essentially saying workplaces or colleges were guilty of discrimination before finding out if they really were.”
Broader Implications
This revelation raises critical questions about the politicization of university investigations and the potential misuse of legal processes to serve larger political narratives. The attorneys’ accounts suggest that the UC antisemitism probes may have been driven more by public relations motives than by thorough, unbiased legal inquiry.
Conclusion
The accounts from these former DOJ attorneys cast doubt on the integrity of the investigations into antisemitism at UC campuses. As the university community and interested stakeholders evaluate these findings, questions persist about the proper role of legal agencies in addressing campus disputes and the importance of maintaining ethical standards in such sensitive inquiries.
For an in-depth look at our investigation, [click here].