UC Berkeley suspended lecturer Peyrin Kao for six months without pay after he used class time to discuss a personal hunger strike and political views on the Israel‑Gaza conflict, and after a prior reprimand for in‑class political commentary. Provost Benjamin Hermalin said Kao’s actions crossed campus policy by bringing advocacy into instructional time. Kao contends his personal dietary choices are protected speech; the university argues repeated classroom references and external interviews made the strike part of his instructional influence. The case has prompted campus debate over academic freedom, the boundaries of classroom speech under Regents Policy 2301, and how universities should police political advocacy by instructors. Legal scholars and faculty governance advocates expect appeals and disputes over precedent as institutions refine policies on in‑class political expression and outside activism.