The Israeli bombing of Gaza is “genocidal,” the newspaper’s homepage said Department of Critical Race and Ethnic Studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Such a statement would be considered political and would be prohibited, according to a new proposal from the University of California regents.

Under the proposal, academic departments would not be allowed to post political statements on their home pages. And any political statement issued by a department – ​​in any location – would have to meet stricter guidelines.

The regents will vote as early as Wednesday on the plan, which would apply to the UC system’s 10 schools, including Santa Santa Cruz, UCLA and Berkeley.

Higher education is rich with opinions on current events, from Black Lives Matter to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But since the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks on Israel and Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, universities have been under pressure to impose stricter limits on their speech, sometimes in ways that have alarmed supporters of academic freedom.

The state’s progressive politics have generally insulated the University of California from some conservative attacks on colleges. But the regents’ proposal, some teachers and students worry, could mark a sea change at a time when the language used to describe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is deeply contentious.

Many Jewish students, teachers and alumni have accused some pro-Palestinian protesters and teachers of anti-Semitic statements. Last month in Berkeley, an event with an Israeli speaker got cancelled after a crowd of protesters smashed doors in what Chancellor Carol Christ described as “an attack on the fundamental values ​​of the university.”

Berkeley political science professor Ron Hassner has staged a sit-in at his office to protest what he says is the administration’s inaction regarding anti-Semitism on campus. And more than 400 professors signed a letter they denounce the way the university system’s ethnic studies departments posted material on their homepages that “defames Israel, rejects the characterization of the Hamas massacre as terrorism and calls on the UC government to ‘end the call for boycott, divestment and sanctions to endorse.’”

On Tuesday, Rep. Virginia Foxx, chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, sent a letter to university officials requesting documents and information about Berkeley’s response to anti-Semitism on campus.

According to Jay Sures, the regent who developed the proposal, banning such statements on a department’s homepage does not restrict academic freedom. Professors and students have many other forums to express themselves, he said, but their opinions on department homepages can be misinterpreted as representative of the University of California.

“The faculty can have access to their Twitter accounts,” Mr. Sures said at a regents meeting in January. “They can do social media. They can publish peer studies. There are so many other ways.”

Some universities have already tightened their rules.

There has also been intense debate over whether universities should adopt the University of Chicago’s famous policy of “institutional neutrality,” meaning the university does not take a position on issues that are not central to the university’s functions .

The debate at the University of California is not quite that. The president, board chair and others who speak as the university’s official voice would not be affected by the regents’ proposal.

In fact, a statement from the university sparked the battle between Mr. Sures and the ethnic studies faculty.

On October 9, Michael V. Drake, the president of the University of California, and Richard Leib, the chairman of the board, issued a statement condemning the Hamas attack as ‘terrorism’ and ‘sickening and incomprehensible’.

A week later, the university’s Ethnic Studies Council, which represents hundreds of the discipline’s faculty members across the system, decided objectedwriting in a letter that the official statement lacked “a full understanding of this historic moment” and contributed to anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian sentiment.

“We call on the UC administrative leadership to withdraw its charges of terrorism, strengthen the Palestinian freedom struggle and oppose Israel’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Palestinian people,” the council said.

Mr. Sures called letter “horrible and disgusting.”

He responded that he would do everything in his power “to protect our Jewish students, and for that matter everyone in our extended community, from your inflammatory and insensitive rhetoric.”

The UC system had already considered the issue of political statements. In 2022, a Committee for Academic Freedom argued against the ban of political statements from departments.

Departments, the report said, should instead set guidelines on when to make statements, be transparent about whose views are represented, and also consider whether they can cool the speech of those who disagree.

For the time being, political statements are allowed, as long as they do not end up in electoral politics.

But the regents’ proposal would limit the departments’ home pages to day-to-day operations, including course descriptions, upcoming events and the release of new publications.

Opinions would be allowed on other university websites. But any political statement would need a disclaimer stating that the views are not necessarily those of the university.

The regents’ proposal adopts other recommendations from the 2022 academic freedom report. It would require department members to vote before issuing a political statement, with ballots collected anonymously to protect dissent. Departments should develop and publish guidelines on the process.

The proposal failed to address the concerns of many faculty members, who say it was politically motivated.

The regents’ proposal “delegitimizes the work we do in ethnic studies,” said Felicity Amaya Schaeffer, Santa Cruz department chair.

The Ethnic Studies Department’s statements are, she said, “based on the academic expertise of almost everyone in the department and especially our faculty who work on Palestine.”

James Steintrager, chairman of the university’s academic senate, expressed concern that the proposal would be an invitation for outsiders to enter academia.

“It’s not just about outright political statements about certain events in the world,” he said in an interview, “but also about things like climate change, vaccine science and things like that.”

But Ty Alper, a Berkeley law professor who led the 2022 Academic Freedom Committee, was pleased that the proposal adopted the recommendations. Mr. Alper said he was less focused on rules about department home pages.

“I’m more concerned,” he said, “about ensuring that teachers have the individual and collective right to make statements on matters of importance.”

As other Republicans prepared to celebrate Independence Day with the traditional red-white-and-blue handshake, Rep. George Santos found himself in the maze of the U.S. justice system, appearing for the first time since pleading not guilty in a federal judge. to 13 crimes in May.

Mr. Santos’ case is still in limbo and no trial date has yet been set. But in a hearing that lasted less than 10 minutes, the prosecution and defense agreed to meet again on September 7. Mr. Santos and his attorney said they would spend the August Congressional recess reviewing the evidence provided by prosecutors to date — 80,000 pages of it. .

Mr. Santos, wearing a gray checked jacket and light red tie, was silent throughout the proceedings. Gone was the fighting spirit that had characterized his press conferences and social media posts. After the hearing, he donned dark sunglasses and left the courtroom without speaking to reporters.

Mr. Santos — whose misadventures include a stint at a company alleged to run a Ponzi scheme, allegations of check fraud in Brazil and Pennsylvania, and lies about everything from college volleyball to the Holocaust — faces a prison sentence of up to 20 years for telegram fraud, money laundering and theft of government funds. Mr. Santos, who represents parts of Long Island and Queens, was indicted last month and pleaded not guilty to all charges.

As Mr. Santos left the Alfonse M. D’Amato United States Courthouse in Central Islip on Long Island, a group of five protesters began chanting “resignation.” Was among them Richard Ostoffa veteran who has accused Mr. Santos of spending money meant to save the life of his service dog, Sapphire.

“You killed Sapphire, George,” Mr. Osthoff sang over the crowd as Mr. Santos approached, adding that he believed Mr. Santos had a “black soul.”

In the months since Mr. Santos helped Republicans take control of the House of Representatives, he has faced intense scrutiny. In December, The Times revealed that he had faked much of his life story, leading to investigations into his business dealings and campaign finances. And while Mr Santos, 34, has admitted to embellishing his education and work history, he has refused to step down and pledged to seek re-election in 2024.

Prosecutors say Mr. Santos orchestrated three schemes. They say that during his most recent congressional run, he defrauded donors of $50,000 that he used to buy designer items and cover personal debts. Authorities have also accused him of collecting unemployment funds while employed and lying on his home’s financial disclosure forms.

Mr. Santos is also under investigation by the House Ethics Committee, which took the unusual step of releasing a status report last week. In it, the closed committee announced that it had issued more than 30 subpoenas and 40 voluntary requests for information related to Mr. Santos’ financial disclosure forms, business dealings, the 2022 congressional campaign, and an allegation that he had sexually harassed a prospective congressional aide.

The commission also announced it had expanded its investigation to include allegations in the indictment that Mr. Santos falsely claimed more than $24,000 in pandemic unemployment benefits while working at a Florida-based investment firm.

It is not clear when the ethics committee will complete its work.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who has a five-member majority in the 435-member House of Representatives, has declined to join Democrats and some New York Republicans in calling for Mr. Santos’ resignation, which would force a special election. But he has also said he does not believe Mr Santos should seek re-election, telling reporters he would consider expelling him depending on the ethics committee’s findings.

Last week, Mr. Santos lost a legal battle to stop the release of the names of the two people who guaranteed his $500,000 bail after news organizations, including The New York Times, argued over their identities being made public. His sureties turned out to be his father and an aunt.

According to court documents, Mr. Santos’ father, Gercino dos Santos Jr., and his aunt, Elma Preven, were not required to put up any money or property to secure the bond. But they could be financially responsible if Mr. Santos misses a trial or otherwise violates the terms of his release.

Under his band, Mr. Santos’ travel is limited to New York, Washington, D.C. and places in between. He must obtain prior permission to travel elsewhere, including for political and campaign events.

Mr. Santos found some small support on Friday. As he walked from the courthouse to a brown SUV, a middle-aged woman dressed in red approached him and handed him a small American flag.

Mr. Santos took the flag and smiled. Then he got into his car and sped off.