Press "Enter" to skip to content

Statement on Recent Remarks Made by Senator Isabella Chow

The Berkeley Political Review has always been guided by an unwavering commitment to a platform that is non-partisan, that accounts for diverse political world-views, and that is made safe and inclusive for our membership. In recent comments made at an ASUC Senate session, Senator Isabella Chow made remarks that directly violate and threaten our organizational duty to ensure that our members feel secure in our publication and that their contributions are validated and protected in our space.

Over the past two weeks, BPR has consulted university resources and convened our internal conduct body as we sought to adjudicate this matter. By virtue of Senator Chow’s position within our organization, our process has required consultation with several institutional channels and diligence from our internal conduct body through a deliberative, thorough process. In conducting this process, the BPR conduct team sought to guarantee that Senator Chow was provided an opportunity to offer testimony. As a result of this process, BPR’s internal conduct body has come to the decision that we must terminate Senator Chow’s membership within our organization.

The BPR Executive team had not known Senator Chow to carry the views expressed at the Oct. 31st Senate session. The remarks made were surprising and severely disappointing to BPR leadership. The Berkeley Political Review does not and cannot exist in any capacity without its members. Ensuring that our staff — our writers, business team, designers, and tech experts — feel that their identities are not threatened by the views expressed by an organizational leader is our responsibility to our membership.

The statements made reflect discourse that has been historically wielded to marginalize, subjugate, and invalidate the existence of the LGBTQ+ community. BPR recognizes such marginalization and will continue to strive in serving as an inclusive platform for the totality of our membership. While BPR strongly affirms non-partisanship, any view that denies the validity of a community does not fall within the spectrum of political discourse that our guiding mission allows for.

The Berkeley Political Review Editorial Board

*The views expressed in this statement were endorsed by a majority of the BPR Editorial Board.  


  1. DS1234567 DS1234567 November 14, 2018

    Gutless and cowardly move. This is coming from a liberal. Isabella Chow’s remarks were repugnant, but earnestly reflected her sincerely held religious beliefs. BPR’s decision proves that they are in fact a partisan organization, focused more on appeasing the mob than providing a space for the confrontation of bad and troubling ideas. Since when is it a political review’s job to make contributors feel “validated and protected”? This decision will haunt the BPR, forever tarnishing their clearly false claims that they are a place where ideas, sometimes even troubling and bad ideas, can be debated and discussed.

    • Andy Doerksen Andy Doerksen November 17, 2018

      While I appreciate your defense of free speech – what worldview establishes that Ms. Chow’s views are “repugnant”? You’d have to have a standard to define and identify “repugnant,” so what is that standard, and why should any of us consider it authoritative in the universe at large?

  2. Dustin Dustin November 15, 2018

    “The Berkeley Political Review has always been guided by an unwavering commitment to a platform that is non-partisan, that accounts for diverse political world-views, and that is made safe and inclusive for our membership.”

    Doesn’t sound like y’all were very “inclusive” of Ms. Chow’s “diverse political world-views”.

  3. Togo Togo November 15, 2018

    I just read her statement and must say I found it as gracious as I’ve ever read. Said she loves and respects all, but that 1) She is representing those who elected her; 2) Voting yes would go against her deeply held beliefs.

    What I find repugnant is the behavior of the BPR. They are representing and reflecting the very thing to which they are persecuting Chow. They are indeed the bigots and bullies. Much praise to Chow for standing her ground with such grace and humility.

  4. LF LF November 16, 2018

    This is disappointing where diverse beliefs cannot be debated or discussed civilly regardless of religious or non-religious views.

    To be terminated because of what an individual believes is closed minded and does NOT support liberalism, only validating Trumps claim of discrimination by the press. We do NOT need more of his ridiculous rhetoric.

  5. Bibiana Bibiana November 16, 2018

    I can’t believe she can’t stand and express her believes but meanwhile the LGBQT community have the right to impose their views on everyone else?? What kind of organization you are that only supports one view and discrimates and terminates one individual base on their own personal believes.
    You are doing exactly what you are opposing to her. You are discriminating her for what she stands and believes. Very sad.

  6. Standw/isabella Standw/isabella November 17, 2018

    AHHH the tolerant left, tolerating EVERYTHING except diverse points of view. This whole article is garbage. You don’t tolerate diverse points of view. You seek to silence them. Your members don’t feel safe when smeone expresses a different opinion????? Give me a break. Welcome to the world! You are advocating for ideological cleansing. By your logic, any group would be more than justified in excluding those with points of view that differ from “the group” (including exclusion of the groups you advocate for).

  7. Joseph Joseph November 17, 2018

    Disgusting. You completely misrepresented that poor girl, ignored the fact she was doing whatever she could to not let her religion interfere, which is why she abstained, and smeared her all across the internet.
    No way in hell you’re nonpartisan.
    Seems you also have no problem attacking someone based on religious views.
    I hope you never live this down.
    You’re all horrible people.
    Feel free to email me if you have a defense at all, or if you’d like to tell me why I’m wrong. Unlike you, I’d love to hear every side of this.
    I get feeling you’ll ignore everything though, continue patting yourselves on the back, and think you’re heroes when you’re clearly the villains in this tale.
    Oh, just want to point out, she can sue. Discrimination based on religious views. You do realize even on a campus, you can’t attack someone based on religion.. right? I sincerely hope she does too. You deserve it.

  8. Andy Doerksen Andy Doerksen November 17, 2018

    Eventually, BPR’s editors will either repent of their sin(s), or be judged by their Creator.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *