Carrie Prejean-Boller’s Theological Hit Job on Jewish Students |
The headlines are currently dominated by Carrie Prejean-Boller’s loud claims of “religious persecution” following her removal from the Presidential Commission on Religious Liberty. But according to a scathing rebuke from fellow commissioner Bishop Robert Barron, the truth is far less saintly. Prejean-Boller wasn’t ousted for her faith; she was dismissed for a calculated, scripted performance that traded civil rights for political theater. During the Commission’s Fifth Hearing, while Jewish-American witnesses testified about the trauma of university-sponsored segregation, Prejean-Boller didn’t seek justice—she sought a theological loophole to excuse a mob.
The Kestenbaum Distinction: Speech vs. Siege
Shabbos Kestenbaum, currently challenging Harvard through federal court for its “deliberate indifference” to antisemitism, offered the room a masterclass in the First Amendment. His stance was refreshingly honest: He has no problem with students holding antisemitic views. He is perfectly fine with them shouting “River to the Sea” jingles or waving signs that would make a 1930s propagandist blush.
Kestenbaum’s “radical” idea? In a country governed by laws, having a hateful opinion doesn’t give you the right to become a paramilitary “safety marshal” who stalks classmates or builds a “Jew Exclusion Zone.” The right to “hate speech” isn’t a license to physically kidnap university property and bar American citizens from their education.
The “Catholic” Smoke Screen
Rather than addressing the physical harassment of students, Prejean-Boller arrived with a phone script and an agenda. Ignoring a federal judge’s ruling that the treatment of Jews at UCLA was “unimaginable and abhorrent,” she attempted to pivot the entire hearing into a debate on biblical prophecy.
“I don’t agree that the new modern state of Israel has any biblical prophecy meaning at all,” she declared, reading from her screen. “So that’s my stance.”
It was a staggering deflection. It’s not every day a Religious Liberty Commissioner uses a hearing on physical assault to fish for a theological technicality that makes protecting Jews “liturgically optional.” By attempting to force the witnesses into a trap, she suggested that unless one bows to her specific theology, their right to walk to class without being spat on is merely a “litmus test” for moral legitimacy.
Vatican II vs. The Prejean Script
As Bishop Barron pointed out, Prejean-Boller’s attempt to play the martyr of “anti-Catholic prejudice” is absurd. The Catholic position is clear: all forms of antisemitism are unequivocally condemned, and the state of Israel has an undeniable right to exist. Her outburst wasn’t a spontaneous expression of faith; it was a scripted attempt to decouple “anti-Zionism” from the antisemitic violence it produces. Her logic was as chilling as it was flawed: If I don’t believe in your theology, I don’t have to protect your civil rights.
A $6.13 Million Reality Check
While Prejean-Boller was busy “un-Zionizing” the Bible, Yitzchok Frankel was providing a much-needed reality check. He reminded the commission that UCLA just settled a lawsuit for $6.13 million—a number pointedly matching the 613 commandments in the Torah—for its role in facilitating student harassment and university-sponsored segregation.
The federal courts didn’t care about Prejean-Boller’s interpretation of prophecy. They cared that UCLA provided the physical barricades used to lock Jews out of the library. They cared that administrators told campus police to “stand down” while American students were being intimidated.
The hearing served as a masterclass in contrast: while a broad, bipartisan coalition of commissioners met the witnesses with profound empathy and a commitment to justice, Prejean-Boller stood alone in her attempt to provide a theological alibi for harassment. The witnesses made it clear: one can be critical of the Israeli government, but one cannot use that criticism as a permit for physical exclusion and harassment.
Carrie Prejean-Boller came with a script; the witnesses came with the Constitution and the cold hard fact that the universities themselves violated their own internal standards and practices to facilitate this hate. Following her removal for “hijacking” the proceedings, the message is clear: personal agendas and fake theology are no defense for violating the civil rights of American students or the very guidelines an institution purports to uphold.