College Turmoil

[Josh]

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

Why are they apologizing, then?

The main job of a university President is to fundraise. If donors start pulling back, you do whatever you can to make them happy, right down to abandoning your principles.

[mike]

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

Why are they apologizing, then?

The main job of a university President is to fundraise. If donors start pulling back, you do whatever you can to make them happy, right down to abandoning your principles.

But I have it on good authority that 100 million one way or the other won't hurt them

[Josh]

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.

[Josh]

Why are they apologizing, then?

The main job of a university President is to fundraise. If donors start pulling back, you do whatever you can to make them happy, right down to abandoning your principles.

But I have it on good authority that 100 million one way or the other won't hurt them

Won't hurt the university but it will definitely hurt that president's career goals. Their goal is to fundraise and make sure not to make controversial statements that scare off donors, much as Harvard's last president learned the hard way.

[Ken]

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.

[Josh]

Right. A private school could have a strict speech code. However, it seems quite suspect for Congress to be interrogating a private school about why they aren’t restricting free speech. (Some private schools choose to meet the public standard with regard to speech.)

The move was obvious political posturing. The right wing feels like they and academia are enemies and this was an opportunity for a “gotcha” moment.

[Ken]

Right. A private school could have a strict speech code. However, it seems quite suspect for Congress to be interrogating a private school about why they aren’t restricting free speech. (Some private schools choose to meet the public standard with regard to speech.)

The move was obvious political posturing. The right wing feels like they and academia are enemies and this was an opportunity for a “gotcha” moment.

Right.

I have no idea why these private college presidents showed up for the dog and pony show they were subjected to. They did it voluntarily. They weren't subpoenaed. It was pretty ill-advised in retrospect. Or they were exceedingly unprepared. Or both.

It is probably a sign of the institutional arrogance that these big institutions are used to getting away with due to their power and influence.

[Josh]

Right. A private school could have a strict speech code. However, it seems quite suspect for Congress to be interrogating a private school about why they aren’t restricting free speech. (Some private schools choose to meet the public standard with regard to speech.)

The move was obvious political posturing. The right wing feels like they and academia are enemies and this was an opportunity for a “gotcha” moment.

Right.

I have no idea why these private college presidents showed up for the dog and pony show they were subjected to. They did it voluntarily. They weren't subpoenaed. It was pretty ill-advised in retrospect. Or they were exceedingly unprepared. Or both.

It is probably a sign of the institutional arrogance that these big institutions are used to getting away with due to their power and influence.

The “woke left” (by this I would mean the crowd that likes to hold protests, advocates for whatever the latest cause is, etc.) overestimated just how much control and influence they have, probably because they’ve been unopposed and tolerated by the mainstream liberal segment for the last 8 or so years, since Trump ran for office.

They just learned they’re not actually in charge and aren’t holding the purse strings.

[Ken]

Right. A private school could have a strict speech code. However, it seems quite suspect for Congress to be interrogating a private school about why they aren’t restricting free speech. (Some private schools choose to meet the public standard with regard to speech.)

The move was obvious political posturing. The right wing feels like they and academia are enemies and this was an opportunity for a “gotcha” moment.

Right.

I have no idea why these private college presidents showed up for the dog and pony show they were subjected to. They did it voluntarily. They weren't subpoenaed. It was pretty ill-advised in retrospect. Or they were exceedingly unprepared. Or both.

It is probably a sign of the institutional arrogance that these big institutions are used to getting away with due to their power and influence.

The “woke left” (by this I would mean the crowd that likes to hold protests, advocates for whatever the latest cause is, etc.) overestimated just how much control and influence they have, probably because they’ve been unopposed and tolerated by the mainstream liberal segment for the last 8 or so years, since Trump ran for office.

They just learned they’re not actually in charge and aren’t holding the purse strings.

I don't think the "woke left" as you call it has any notion that it has much control and influence at all. That is why they do pointless stuff like protests. If they had any actual power they would be using it instead of marching around chanting trite slogans and waving signs to each other. They sometimes do think they have power in numbers. But it usually turns out that they don't have that either, as we can see every time some fringe lefty candidate like Jill Stein runs for office. Or even Bernie Sanders for that matter.

[Josh]

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.