UC Berkeley suspended electrical‑engineering lecturer Peyrin Kao for six months after university officials concluded he used class time to advocate for a personal hunger strike in support of Palestinians. The suspension follows a prior censure for off‑topic political remarks and university claims that Kao intended to influence students’ political thinking in instructional time. Provost Benjamin Hermalin cites violations of Regents Policy 2301 and harm to students who reported feeling harassed; Kao argues his actions were protected personal expression. The case has reignited debates over academic freedom, classroom boundaries, and whether faculty political advocacy crosses into impermissible use of instructional time. Universities and faculty governance groups will likely revisit guidance on in‑class political speech, disclosure requirements, and the disciplinary threshold for mixing advocacy with instruction.