College Turmoil

[Ken]

Now, a good question is why Congress feels like they need to be taking stances on what goes on in private universities.

On Friday, more than 70 members of Congress called for the firings of Ms. Magill and two presidents who appeared alongside her in Washington on Tuesday, Claudine Gay of Harvard and Sally Kornbluth of M.I.T.

Doesn't Congress have other things they need to be doing? It seems a bit ridiculous that Congress asks you to come in and answer some questions, you (voluntarily) do so, they don't like your answers, and then call for ruining your career and getting you fired.

We both agree here 100%

That said, pretty much every university in the country could do with an enormous pruning of the bureaucratic cancer that has evolved [ ] over time to take over university life. Universities like Penn and Harvard have ridiculous high priced assistant deans and other administrators to regulate and control every obscure aspect of student life. They all need to go away and let universities get back to their real function of teaching and research. Meanwhile the professionals who do the actual teaching and research are being pared away in favor of cheap adjuncts and grad students who earn well less than average high school teachers and about the same salary as substitute teacher.

The military, for example, serves the same age group as universities for the most part. Yet somehow the military manages to teach and train the same age cohorts of young people to be functional thinking and responsible adults without an endless array of expensive deans and administrators curating and coddling every aspect of life for young enlisted soldiers, sailors, and marines.

I'm no great supporter of the military. It has its own issues. But I think the comparison is apropos.

[Ken]

What does all this have to do with Sattler, anyway? I wasn't paying real close attention - was their Dean or President hauled down in front of Congress too?

It doesn't. If you scroll back up you will see that it was RZehr, Mike, and Ernie that got us sidetracked.

It relates to Sattler in that this story at U Penn is about powerful donors exerting control over the course of an institution. It was billionaire Jewish hedge fund owners trying to exert their will over the operations of U Penn by threatening to pull the plug on their donations.

[Josh]

What does all this have to do with Sattler, anyway? I wasn't paying real close attention - was their Dean or President hauled down in front of Congress too?

These universities all had crises of leadership and their President resigning or getting fired, and then attendant questions about funding being in jeopardy.

[joshuabgood]

The examples cited and pointed to by Jewish organizations and Congress were not even actual calls for genocide. They were students who were chanting support for "intifada" and students chanting "from the river to the sea" which might are calls for struggle and for a Palestinian homeland but they are not actual calls for genocide. The slogan "from the river to the sea" was actually the campaign slogan of Likud in the 1970s. Was Likud calling for genocide?

So university presidents were actually correct to hedge their responses. Context actually does matter.

Correct, although it still needed to be pointed out that calls for genocide are, indeed, constitutionally protected free speech - and such a public university couldn't even have a code prohibiting it, unless it was specifically inciting violence against a specific person or group of persons leading to actual violence. (Public universities often have to put up with a great deal of really wacky and inappropriate things under the guise of "free speech".)

Calls for genocide are, obviously bad. But as Ken points out above, there haven't even been calls for genocide. Certain people are claiming that "from the river to the sea" is a call for genocide. It's not. It's a political stance calling for a one-state solution with a Palestinian majority government. That is not the same thing as "genocide".

Now, I disagree with that political stance and wouldn't want to see it, but it is getting pretty ridiculous to just call anyone who is a political opponent "genocide" and then demand they lose their right to speak. And it's very disappointing to see the conservative evangelical right-wing as some of the strongest thrust behind this, after all of their whining and complaining about being "cancelled" over the past 8 years.

None of these institutions are public universities. They can establish whatever codes of conduct they want for their students (as can Sattler which is the subject of this thread). The First Amendment prohibits government censorship of speech, not codes of conduct at private universities. But again, this whole thing at Congress was very disingenuous and nothing more than an attempt to create controversy. Even the hearing and responses were selectively edited. That still doesn't mean these university presidents weren't incompetent at their jobs. They were and they should have been more astute to the game that was afoot. Perhaps they were to arrogant to think they could be pinned down by some rube Congresswoman.

From today's New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/07/opin ... =url-share

But while it might seem hard to believe that there’s any context that could make the responses of the college presidents OK, watching the whole hearing at least makes them more understandable. In the questioning before the now infamous exchange, you can see the trap Stefanik laid.

“You understand that the use of the term ‘intifada’ in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict is indeed a call for violent armed resistance against the state of Israel, including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews. Are you aware of that?” she asked Gay.

Gay responded that such language was “abhorrent.” Stefanik then badgered her to admit that students chanting about intifada were calling for genocide, and asked angrily whether that was against Harvard’s code of conduct. “Will admissions offers be rescinded or any disciplinary action be taken against students or applicants who say, ‘From the river to the sea’ or ‘intifada,’ advocating for the murder of Jews?” Gay repeated that such “hateful, reckless, offensive speech is personally abhorrent to me,” but said action would be taken only “when speech crosses into conduct.”

So later in the hearing, when Stefanik again started questioning Gay, Kornbluth and Magill about whether it was permissible for students to call for the genocide of the Jews, she was referring, it seemed clear, to common pro-Palestinian rhetoric and trying to get the university presidents to commit to disciplining those who use it. Doing so would be an egregious violation of free speech. After all, even if you’re disgusted by slogans like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” their meaning is contested in a way that, say, “Gas the Jews” is not. Finding themselves in a no-win situation, the university presidents resorted to bloodless bureaucratic contortions, and walked into a public relations disaster.

Despite Stefanik's insistence, the term Intifada simply isn't a call for genocide. Generally, the term intifada refers to a violent uprising against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Indeed, the First Intifada, which is generally dated from 1987 to 1993 mostly consisted of rock throwing and what we might call rioting. In other words, resistance to occupation, not some call for a new global genocide of Jews.

Unless your relatives were the ones killed in suicide car bombs during the "intifada"...then maybe it looks different.

[Josh]

I wouldn’t call Zionism “genocide” either, even though the movement has cost many Palestinians their lives. It seems prudent to separate political / ideological movements from calling them “genocides” when they aren’t.

The NYT has an excellent article out today on how Netanyahu funded and tolerated Hamas in order to discourage things he didn’t want such as a two state solution. Well worth a read.

[HondurasKeiser]

Correct, although it still needed to be pointed out that calls for genocide are, indeed, constitutionally protected free speech - and such a public university couldn't even have a code prohibiting it, unless it was specifically inciting violence against a specific person or group of persons leading to actual violence. (Public universities often have to put up with a great deal of really wacky and inappropriate things under the guise of "free speech".)

Calls for genocide are, obviously bad. But as Ken points out above, there haven't even been calls for genocide. Certain people are claiming that "from the river to the sea" is a call for genocide. It's not. It's a political stance calling for a one-state solution with a Palestinian majority government. That is not the same thing as "genocide".

Now, I disagree with that political stance and wouldn't want to see it, but it is getting pretty ridiculous to just call anyone who is a political opponent "genocide" and then demand they lose their right to speak. And it's very disappointing to see the conservative evangelical right-wing as some of the strongest thrust behind this, after all of their whining and complaining about being "cancelled" over the past 8 years.

None of these institutions are public universities. They can establish whatever codes of conduct they want for their students (as can Sattler which is the subject of this thread). The First Amendment prohibits government censorship of speech, not codes of conduct at private universities. But again, this whole thing at Congress was very disingenuous and nothing more than an attempt to create controversy. Even the hearing and responses were selectively edited. That still doesn't mean these university presidents weren't incompetent at their jobs. They were and they should have been more astute to the game that was afoot. Perhaps they were to arrogant to think they could be pinned down by some rube Congresswoman.

From today's New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/07/opin ... =url-share

But while it might seem hard to believe that there’s any context that could make the responses of the college presidents OK, watching the whole hearing at least makes them more understandable. In the questioning before the now infamous exchange, you can see the trap Stefanik laid.

“You understand that the use of the term ‘intifada’ in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict is indeed a call for violent armed resistance against the state of Israel, including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews. Are you aware of that?” she asked Gay.

Gay responded that such language was “abhorrent.” Stefanik then badgered her to admit that students chanting about intifada were calling for genocide, and asked angrily whether that was against Harvard’s code of conduct. “Will admissions offers be rescinded or any disciplinary action be taken against students or applicants who say, ‘From the river to the sea’ or ‘intifada,’ advocating for the murder of Jews?” Gay repeated that such “hateful, reckless, offensive speech is personally abhorrent to me,” but said action would be taken only “when speech crosses into conduct.”

So later in the hearing, when Stefanik again started questioning Gay, Kornbluth and Magill about whether it was permissible for students to call for the genocide of the Jews, she was referring, it seemed clear, to common pro-Palestinian rhetoric and trying to get the university presidents to commit to disciplining those who use it. Doing so would be an egregious violation of free speech. After all, even if you’re disgusted by slogans like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” their meaning is contested in a way that, say, “Gas the Jews” is not. Finding themselves in a no-win situation, the university presidents resorted to bloodless bureaucratic contortions, and walked into a public relations disaster.

Despite Stefanik's insistence, the term Intifada simply isn't a call for genocide. Generally, the term intifada refers to a violent uprising against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Indeed, the First Intifada, which is generally dated from 1987 to 1993 mostly consisted of rock throwing and what we might call rioting. In other words, resistance to occupation, not some call for a new global genocide of Jews.

Unless your relatives were the ones killed in suicide car bombs during the "intifada"...then maybe it looks different.

Thank you. It's odd to see people here minimizing and re-defining chants that are clear calls for violence and genocide. Intifada simply means "struggle" gosh I thought we all learned that that was actually the definition of "jihad" at the same time we were all taught that Islam is a religion of peace.

[Ken]

Despite Stefanik's insistence, the term Intifada simply isn't a call for genocide. Generally, the term intifada refers to a violent uprising against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Indeed, the First Intifada, which is generally dated from 1987 to 1993 mostly consisted of rock throwing and what we might call rioting. In other words, resistance to occupation, not some call for a new global genocide of Jews.

Unless your relatives were the ones killed in suicide car bombs during the "intifada"...then maybe it looks different.

If having one's relatives killed by bombs is genocide, then what the Israelis are doing today in Gaza is most certainly genocide. And those who support Israel are complicit in genocide. Do you not agree?

After all, the death toll from 2 months in Gaza vastly exceeds a decade of Intifada by orders of magnitude.

You see how that works?

[HondurasKeiser]

Despite Stefanik's insistence, the term Intifada simply isn't a call for genocide. Generally, the term intifada refers to a violent uprising against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Indeed, the First Intifada, which is generally dated from 1987 to 1993 mostly consisted of rock throwing and what we might call rioting. In other words, resistance to occupation, not some call for a new global genocide of Jews.

Unless your relatives were the ones killed in suicide car bombs during the "intifada"...then maybe it looks different.

If having one's relatives killed by bombs is genocide, then what the Israelis are doing today in Gaza is most certainly genocide. And those who support Israel are complicit in genocide. Do you not agree?

After all, the death toll from 2 months in Gaza vastly exceeds a decade of Intifada by orders of magnitude.

You see how that works?

No, because words actually have meanings. Genocide means something and it is not simply the collateral damages of war, tragic as they may be. Hamas is committed to the genocide of Jews - Israel for all its faults is not committed to the genocide of Palestinians - if they are they're doing an horrific job at it.

Likewise, intifada has a meaning - the first definition google tells me is "uprising and rebellion...specifically an armed uprising". The 1st and 2nd intifadas were hardly mere "struggles". What leads us to believe that a 3rd would suddenly become a mostly peaceful street protest? Would you like to be on the receiving end of such struggles?

As for "From the River to the Sea" - regardless who used the phrase first and how long ago (Likud's usage was in 1977). I think it's widely understood today to be call for the destruction of Israel and for there to be a one-state solution in the form of Palestine. There's nothing non-violent or peaceful about such a call. Hakeem Jeffries agrees: ""widely understood as calling for the complete destruction of Israel". Karine Jean-Pierre said that: "...it is divisive, it is hurtful, many find it hurtful and many find it antisemitic..."

[Ken]

Unless your relatives were the ones killed in suicide car bombs during the "intifada"...then maybe it looks different.

If having one's relatives killed by bombs is genocide, then what the Israelis are doing today in Gaza is most certainly genocide. And those who support Israel are complicit in genocide. Do you not agree?

After all, the death toll from 2 months in Gaza vastly exceeds a decade of Intifada by orders of magnitude.

You see how that works?

No, because words actually have meanings. Genocide means something and it is not simply the collateral damages of war, tragic as they may be. Hamas is committed to the genocide of Jews - Israel for all its faults is not committed to the genocide of Palestinians - if they are they're doing an horrific job at it.

Likewise, intifada has a meaning - the first definition google tells me is "uprising and rebellion...specifically an armed uprising". The 1st and 2nd intifadas were hardly mere "struggles". What leads us to believe that a 3rd would suddenly become a mostly peaceful street protest? Would you like to be on the receiving end of such struggles?

As for "From the River to the Sea" - regardless who used the phrase first and how long ago (Likud's usage was in 1977). I think it's widely understood today to be call for the destruction of Israel and for there to be a one-state solution in the form of Palestine. There's nothing non-violent or peaceful about such a call. Hakeem Jeffries agrees: ""widely understood as calling for the complete destruction of Israel". Karine Jean-Pierre said that: "...it is divisive, it is hurtful, many find it hurtful and many find it antisemitic..."

Yes words have meanings. And throughout this entire fiasco with university presidents there haven't been pro-Palestinian protestors on those three campuses calling for the genocide of Jews, nor have there been pro-Jewish protestors calling for the genocide of Palestinians.

What there has been is a lot of heated rhetoric on both sides that fall clearly into notions of free speech. And there are no doubt individuals who have gone too far in their rhetoric. Including one of Congresswoman Stephanik's own Republican colleagues who talked about turning Gaza into a parking lot.

Speech that is hateful and anti-Semitic should be called out. Along with speech that dehumanizes Palestinians. But ant-Semitism isn't tantamount to genocide. It isn't really that complicated.

[joshuabgood]

Despite Stefanik's insistence, the term Intifada simply isn't a call for genocide. Generally, the term intifada refers to a violent uprising against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Indeed, the First Intifada, which is generally dated from 1987 to 1993 mostly consisted of rock throwing and what we might call rioting. In other words, resistance to occupation, not some call for a new global genocide of Jews.

Unless your relatives were the ones killed in suicide car bombs during the "intifada"...then maybe it looks different.

If having one's relatives killed by bombs is genocide, then what the Israelis are doing today in Gaza is most certainly genocide. And those who support Israel are complicit in genocide. Do you not agree?

After all, the death toll from 2 months in Gaza vastly exceeds a decade of Intifada by orders of magnitude.

You see how that works?

Yes I do and yes it is.