UCLA Chancellor Faces Backlash Over 9/11 Symposium
UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk has drawn criticism from law school faculty after publicly rebuking a symposium that included the lawyer of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Faculty argue the chancellor’s statement unfairly targeted the event and threatened academic freedom, while Frenk maintains…
By Felo News Desk · Published
UCLA’s top academic official, Chancellor Julio Frenk, is facing a sharp backlash from faculty after he issued a public statement condemning a law school symposium that featured the lawyer of 9/11 terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The event, titled "25 Years After 9/11: Reimagining Freedom, Justice, and Security," took place on September 10‑11 and included several left‑wing scholars, including Yale professor David R. G. who has criticized counterterrorism policies as "racist gravy trains."
What Happened
Frenk’s statement, released to the California Post, expressed deep concern over the presence of Melanie T. Partow, a government lawyer who defended Mohammed during the Trump administration. He said the event could be seen as endorsing terrorism and antisemitism, and urged the university to uphold community values while protecting academic freedom.
In response, dozens of UCLA School of Law faculty members, including an assistant dean, signed a letter demanding that Frenk retract his remarks. The letter argued that the chancellor’s words implied the symposium supported terrorism and that his criticism was unfounded because Partow’s contributions focused on military adjudicatory processes rather than any specific client.
Background and Context
UCLA, one of America’s leading research universities, has recently been embroiled in lawsuits alleging that the Trump administration failed to address antisemitism on campus. The law school’s decision to host a 9/11 anniversary event featuring a lawyer linked to the terrorist plot has intensified scrutiny. The event also drew the attention of Judea Pearl, a professor whose son, journalist Daniel Pearl, was murdered by Mohammed in 2002. Pearl has publicly criticized the symposium, calling it a “weaponization” of the 25th anniversary.
Julio Frenk, who took office as UCLA’s seventh chancellor in January 2025, has previously emphasized the importance of balancing free speech with community sensitivity. In his statement, he claimed he was not condemning the law school or the right to legal representation, but rather expressing concern that the event could be interpreted as endorsing extremist views.
Faculty Response and the Debate on Academic Freedom
More than 200 faculty members from institutions such as Stanford and Harvard signed an open letter urging Frenk to retract his statement. They argued that the chancellor’s remarks risked discouraging scholars who engage in controversial but essential legal work. The letter emphasized that academic freedom must be preserved even when topics touch on sensitive historical events.
Frenk defended his position by stating that his words were carefully chosen and did not constitute a condemnation of the law school or its faculty. He clarified that the statement was meant to support community members who were hurt by the event and to remind the university of its collective responsibilities.
What Happens Next
The Academic Senate of UCLA’s law school has expressed concern over the chancellor’s rebuke, and the university is currently reviewing the situation. While Frenk has reiterated his stance, the debate over whether the symposium crossed a line remains unresolved. The incident underscores the ongoing challenge universities face in navigating free speech, historical trauma, and institutional reputation.
As the discussion continues, stakeholders—including students, faculty, and alumni—are watching closely to see how UCLA will balance its commitment to academic freedom with its duty to honor the memory of 9/11 victims and maintain a respectful campus environment.
For now, the university has not issued a formal apology or retraction, and the future of the symposium’s legacy remains uncertain.
Key facts
- UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk rebuked a 9/11 symposium featuring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s lawyer.
- Faculty demanded a retraction, citing threats to academic freedom.
- Judea Pearl criticized the event for weaponizing the 25th anniversary.
- The incident occurs amid lawsuits over campus antisemitism.
- The university is reviewing the situation with no formal resolution yet.
Why it matters
The incident underscores the tension between academic freedom and sensitivity to historical trauma, a debate that shapes policy and campus culture nationwide.
Frequently asked questions
What was the purpose of the symposium?
It aimed to discuss freedom, justice, and security 25 years after 9/11, featuring scholars who analyze counterterrorism policies.
Why was Melanie T. Partow’s presence controversial?
She was the government lawyer who defended Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind 9/11.
Did the chancellor criticize the law school?
He stated he was not condemning the law school but was concerned about the event’s implications.
What is the current status?
The university is reviewing the situation; no retraction or apology has been issued.
Sources
- [1] nypost.com — originally reported as “UCLA chancellor pressured to retract rebuke over event with 9/11 ‘mastermind’ lawyer”
