UC President Reaffirms Ban on Student Boycotts Over Nations

UC President Reaffirms Ban on Student Boycotts Over Nations \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ UC President Michael Drake reaffirmed the university’s ban on student government-led financial boycotts. While Israel wasn’t named, the directive aligns with Trump-era antisemitism investigations into universities. Civil rights groups criticized the policy as suppressing pro-Palestinian student activism and free speech.

Quick Looks

• UC president Michael Drake reaffirmed ban on student-led financial boycotts, citing business standards
• Israel not named, but context ties policy to federal antisemitism investigations
• Trump administration probes UC campuses, including UC Berkeley, over pro-Palestinian activism
• UC policy cites competitive bidding and academic neutrality as reasons for the ban
• Council on American-Islamic Relations criticizes letter as a move to silence dissent
• Federal grants tied to anti-boycott certification, under new Trump administration guidelines
• UC Student Association president disagrees, calling it a blow to student influence

Deep Look

University of California President Michael Drake has reaffirmed the system’s prohibition on student government-led financial boycotts targeting companies tied to any country—a move broadly understood to include Israel. While Drake’s letter didn’t name Israel explicitly, it comes amid heightened tensions over pro-Palestinian activism on campuses, a federal antisemitism investigation, and new restrictions on federal research funding.

Drake emphasized that all UC-affiliated entities—whether academic units or student governments—must follow sound business protocols such as competitive bids and fiduciary responsibility. Financial decisions cannot be based on political objectives. “Actions by University entities to implement boycotts of companies based on their association with a particular country would not align with these sound business practices,” he stated in a system-wide memo sent to campus chancellors.

UC spokesperson Rachel Zaentz reinforced this point, explaining the policy is meant to protect academic freedom and the open exchange of ideas, while still binding student bodies to financial neutrality. The university maintains that respecting diverse viewpoints does not extend to financial decisions that could undercut legal and operational integrity.

The announcement arrives in a politically charged environment following widespread protests on UC campuses—most notably UCLA—against the war in Gaza. Student activists have increasingly used their platforms to pressure student governments and university administrations into supporting divestment from companies linked to Israel. Many see this policy as part of a broader surge of campus engagement around global human rights issues.

At the federal level, the Trump administration has intensified its scrutiny of alleged antisemitism on college campuses. Agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Science Foundation now require grant recipients to certify that they will not participate in political boycotts of Israel—or forfeit funding tied to research, healthcare, and drought relief. Universities nationwide, including the UC system, must adhere to these new terms or risk losing vital grants.

Civil rights groups view the policy as a thinly veiled censorship tool designed to suppress political expression. The California chapter of CAIR condemned the letter, arguing it “sends a chilling message that financial interests and political pressure outweigh free expression and moral responsibility.” Oussama Mokeddem, CAIR’s Government Affairs Director, accused the university of prioritizing funding and legal compliance over ethical advocacy.

Student leaders have also reacted forcefully. Aditi Hariharan, president of the UC Student Association, told the Los Angeles Times that the policy diminishes the limited political influence students have: “Student government is one of the few places where they can really get involved and have their voices heard.”

Legally, the university stands on firm footing: student governments are extensions of the institution, and financial transactions—like purchasing contracts—must adhere to established governance standards. However, critics say this consistency is applied unevenly, particularly when voters push resolutions that challenge Israel’s policies.

Legislative allies have seized on the issue. Several Republican lawmakers are pushing measures that would further restrict universities from supporting pro-Palestinian or BDS-related policies, citing the UC situation as evidence of resistance to academic freedom.

Looking ahead, the letter may embolden university officials nationwide to pre-emptively restrict politically charged financial decisions—especially as state legislatures and the federal government threaten to withhold funding. The UC system, leading California’s higher education, may face increased backlash from students and faculty that could spark additional protests, lawsuits, and state-level political interventions.

In the coming months, UC campuses could witness a new wave of student activism—ranging from symbolic protests to referendums aimed at rebelling against the policy. Observers expect growing pressure on UC to justify the policy’s financial rationale or face public and legal challenges.

In summary, President Drake’s letter not only reinforces UC policy but also places the university at the crossroads of major national conversations about free expression, political activism, educational governance, and federal funding priorities. The tensions between institutional oversight and grassroots dissent are now unfolding in real-time across California’s public university system.

More on US News