The Fora: A Higher Education Community

Universities Face Congressional Inquiry and Angry Donors Over Handling of Antisemitism
By Alan Blinder, Anemona Hartocollis and Stephanie Saul

Harvard, M.I.T. and the University of Pennsylvania on Thursday faced threats from donors, demands that their presidents resign and a congressional investigation as repercussions mounted over the universities' responses to antisemitism on campus.

At Penn, university trustees discussed the future of Elizabeth Magill, its president, whose congressional testimony on Tuesday set off a furor when she dodged the question of whether she would discipline students for calling for the genocide of Jews.

Her answers and similar comments by Claudine Gay of Harvard and Sally Kornbluth of M.I.T. at a House committee meeting set off accusations that they were doing little to protect their own students. All three said they had taken action against antisemitism, but critics argued they had not done enough or were even fostering antisemitism on their campuses.

In response, a House committee opened an investigation into the three institutions as its chairwoman criticized the schools for failing to tackle the "rampant antisemitism" on their campuses after the Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7 and the subsequent Israeli invasion of Gaza.

Representative Virginia Foxx, the North Carolina Republican who leads the Committee on Education and the Workforce, said the inquiry would examine "the learning environments" at Harvard, M.I.T. and Penn, as well as disciplinary procedures. She warned that the panel would "not hesitate" to issue subpoenas.

"The disgusting targeting and harassment of Jewish students is not limited to these institutions, and other universities should expect investigations as well, as their litany of similar failures has not gone unnoticed," Ms. Foxx said in a statement.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, said all three presidents should leave their posts. "You cannot call for the genocide of Jews, the genocide of any group of people, and not say that that's harassment," she told Fox News.

And Doug Emhoff, the husband of Vice President Kamala Harris, denounced the university leaders at the National Menorah Lighting in Washington.

"Seeing the presidents of some of our most elite universities literally unable to denounce calling for the genocide of Jews as antisemitic — that lack of moral clarity is simply unacceptable," said Mr. Emhoff, who is Jewish.

For Ms. Magill, pressure has been building within Penn's community, too. The advisory board at Wharton, Penn's business school, told Ms. Magill in a letter this week that "the university requires new leadership with immediate effect."

And the hedge fund manager Ross L. Stevens said that he would pull back a donation, worth approximately $100 million, to fund the Stevens Center for Innovation in Finance.

"Absent a change in leadership and values at Penn in the very near future," he plans to rescind shares in Stone Ridge Holdings Group, he said in an email to his staff on Thursday.

"Mr. Stevens and Stone Ridge are appalled by the university's stance on antisemitism on campus," lawyers for Mr. Stevens wrote in a separate letter to the university's general counsel informing her of his decision.

During an emergency meeting by telephone on Thursday, Penn's board of trustees did not take a vote on whether to remove Ms. Magill, who had apologized earlier for her testimony. Instead, they pressed Ms. Magill and other leaders to express the university's values with greater clarity. University officials did not respond to requests for interviews.

Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, a nonvoting member of Penn's board, said on Thursday evening that he had urged the board to decide whether Ms. Magill's testimony reflected the university's values.

"I expect they'll be meeting again in the coming days, and I expect them to carefully weigh that question," he said, speaking to reporters after a visit to Penn Hillel, a Jewish campus group. "That's a question for them to answer, not me."

He said that Jewish students at Hillel told him that they did not feel support from the administration. Some of them said they did not feel supported by their professors, either, he said.

At M.I.T., the governing board issued a strong endorsement of Dr. Kornbluth's leadership.

"She has done excellent work in leading our community, including in addressing antisemitism, Islamophobia and other forms of hate," the board said in a statement sent to all the university's students, faculty and staff. "She has our full and unreserved support."

Dr. Gay of Harvard issued a clarification on Wednesday: "Let me be clear: Calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any religious or ethnic group are vile, they have no place at Harvard, and those who threaten our Jewish students will be held to account."

But David Wolpe, a prominent rabbi, said the problems at Harvard ran deep and he resigned on Thursday from Harvard's antisemitism advisory committee, formed after the Oct. 7 attack.

Rabbi Wolpe praised Dr. Gay as a "kind and thoughtful person," in a social media post, and said most students were not prosecuting an ideological agenda. But he said that antisemitism was so entrenched that he did not think he could make the kind of difference he had hoped for.

"Part of the problem is a simple herd mentality — people screaming slogans whose meaning and implication they know nothing of, or not wishing to be disliked by taking an unpopular position," he wrote.

Their congressional testimony was not their best moment.  I think Gay at Harvard and Kornbluth at M.I.T. are safe, but it's difficult to see Magill at Penn surviving this furor.  Unlike the other two, she is not just under fire from politicos, the press, and random people; she is now under fire internally (from the Wharton School) and from a donor pledging $100 million.  With that kind of money on the line any leader is expendable and would be expected to step down to help rehab the school's tarnished reputation.  People want a fresh start to help move past this episode.  It is a shame; she has only been in office one year.  She has an impressive resume https://president.upenn.edu/meet-president. 

I am surprised she was not more politically tuned in and savvy during her testimony.

UPenn President Liz Magill under fire over her testimony on antisemitism: 'An utter disgrace'
by Matt Egan

The growing chorus of donors, politicians, business leaders and other prominent figures calling for the immediate ouster of University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill has reached a crescendo after her disastrous testimony at a House hearing earlier this week.

During Tuesday's House hearing, Magill, along with the presidents of Harvard and MIT, did not explicitly say that calling for the genocide of Jews would necessarily violate their code of conduct on bullying or harassment. Instead, they explained it would depend on the circumstances and conduct.

Magill had already been under fire prior to Tuesday's hearing after multiple incidents of antisemitism on campus in recent months – and what critics have said was a tepid response to those incidents.

After the fallout from Tuesday's hearing, Magill attempted to clarify her message on Wednesday, posting a video on X in which she said she should have focused on the "irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of Jewish people is a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate."

Magill said Wednesday that Penn's policies "need to be clarified and evaluated," adding that in her view: "It would be harassment or intimidation."

But Penn's stakeholders were unsatisfied. Here is who is calling for Magill to resign:

Six Republican members of Congress are calling for Penn's board of trustees to fire Magill.

"President Magill's testimony is a clear reflection of the pervasive moral and educational failures prevalent at your university and other premier universities across the country," the Republican lawmakers said in the letter. "Her actions in front of Congress were an embarrassment to the university, its student body and its vast network of proud alumni."

The letter, signed by Reps. Guy Reschenthaler, Dan Meuser, Mike Kelly, John Joyce, Lloyd Smucker and Brian Fitzpatrick, described Magill's testimony as an "utter disgrace" to Pennsylvania and the nation.

"We respectfully call on you to relieve President Magill of her duties as president to protect the lives of Jewish American students at the University of Pennsylvania," the lawmakers said.

Former US Ambassador Jon Huntsman Thursday night called on Penn's board of trustees to remove Magill.

"Let's make this great institution shine once again," Huntsman said in a statement shared exclusively with CNN on Thursday evening. "We are anchored to the past until the trustees step up and completely cut ties with current leadership. Full stop."

Huntsman, the former governor of Utah, was a 1987 graduate and former UPenn trustee. In October, he blasted Penn's response to antisemitism on campus and promised to halt his family's donations to the university. The Huntsman family has been such prominent supporters of UPenn that the Huntsman name is on the main Wharton School building.

Now, Huntsman is going further, calling for a complete leadership change.

"At this point it's not even debatable," Huntsman said. "Just a simple IQ test."

Stone Ridge Holdings CEO Ross Stevens, a major donor to Penn, sent a letter on Thursday to Penn threatening to take steps that would cost the Ivy League school approximately $100 million if Magill stays on as president.

Stevens, a Penn alum and CEO of Stone Ridge Holdings, argues he has clear grounds to rescind $100 million worth of shares in his company that are currently held by Penn. He specifically cites Magill's disastrous testimony before Congress earlier this week.

"Absent a change in leadership and values at Penn in the very near future, I plan to rescind Penn's Stone Ridge shares to help prevent any further reputational and other damage to Stone Ridge as a result of our relationship with Penn and Liz Magill," Stevens said in a note to his employees on Thursday obtained by CNN.

The Wharton Board of Advisors, comprised of a powerful group of business leaders, including NFL owner Josh Harris, former Johnson & Johnson CEO Alex Gorsky, Related Companies CEO Jeff Blau, Blackstone exec David Blitzer and BET CEO Scott Mills, has called for Magill's immediate ouster.

"As a result of the University leadership's stated beliefs and collective failure to act, our Board respectfully suggests to you and the Board of Trustees that the University requires new leadership with immediate effect," the Wharton Board of Advisors wrote in a letter sent directly to Magill.

The letter, which appears to have been sent Wednesday, specifically cites Magill's testimony.

Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, called the testimony "catastrophic and clarifying" and said Magill's attempt to clean-up her testimony "looked like a hostage video, like she was speaking under duress."

"I understand why the governor of Pennsylvania and so many of the trustees don't have confidence in her. I don't have confidence anymore that Penn is capable, under this leadership, of getting it right," Greenblatt told CNN's Kate Bolduan, adding that he has spoken with Magill.

Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand on Thursday said she agrees with calls for the presidents of Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania to resign, arguing they are "failing in the worst way."

"Their statements were abhorrent," Gillibrand told Fox News, referring to Tuesday's hearing in the House. "Trying to contextualize what constitutes harassment? Jewish students are terrified on these campuses."

It's amazing that a group of students, absolutely, completely, and utterly certain in the righteousness of their beliefs, can bring down a president and cost a university a 9 figure donation.

During the days of Title IX furor, many schools developed policies that included a full investigative process, a hearing, and now also ability to cross-examine witnesses. Many schools then also had discriminatory behavior fall under the same process. The reason I bring this up is that schools then also learned to be very careful about naming any person as victim or a perpetrator. They learned to be very general in saying that various claims would be "handled by the process." To me, it seems that is  what most of them were doing at this hearing, but they were not handling it well. It reminds of the answer Michael Dukakis gave at a debate in 1988 when someone questioned him about what he would do with a criminal who (hypothetically!) raped his wife. He just gave a rote answer about the process. Its not that it was "wrong" then or "wrong" now, but there's a difference between technically correct and right in the moment. Its better to take a two pronged approach and say something like "Of course any act of antisemitism is horrendous and I would never tolerate such acts. However, when someone is accused of something , we have to investigate it thoroughly, otherwise there's too much of a chance that an innocent person can be falsely charged of this or anything else, and we wouldn't want that."  They then could then go on to mention probable punishments for such acts.  But Stefanik and others were just too interested in playing "gotcha" to make even such a nuanced approach seem reasonable.

Quote from: Ruralguy on December 08, 2023, 09:12:00 AMDuring the days of Title IX furor, many schools developed policies that included a full investigative process, a hearing, and now also ability to cross-examine witnesses. Many schools then also had discriminatory behavior fall under the same process. The reason I bring this up is that schools then also learned to be very careful about naming any person as victim or a perpetrator. They learned to be very general in saying that various claims would be "handled by the process." To me, it seems that is  what most of them were doing at this hearing, but they were not handling it well. It reminds of the answer Michael Dukakis gave at a debate in 1988 when someone questioned him about what he would do with a criminal who (hypothetically!) raped his wife. He just gave a rote answer about the process. Its not that it was "wrong" then or "wrong" now, but there's a difference between technically correct and right in the moment. Its better to take a two pronged approach and say something like "Of course any act of antisemitism is horrendous and I would never tolerate such acts. However, when someone is accused of something , we have to investigate it thoroughly, otherwise there's too much of a chance that an innocent person can be falsely charged of this or anything else, and we wouldn't want that."  They then could then go on to mention probable punishments for such acts.  But Stefanik and others were just too interested in playing "gotcha" to make even such a nuanced approach seem reasonable.

Agreed. Most public congressional hearings of this sort are entirely performative.  I decline to believe people like Stefanik are losing sleep over anything happening on college campuses.  The presidents should have been expecting these predictable gotcha questions and been ready with savvy answers that would have resonated with the public.  Instead they hid behind canned legalese answers and it backfired spectacularly.  The failure here is not just on the part of the presidents but also on the part of their communications and public relations staff whom should have prepared them with mock Q&A sessions.  It may sound cynical but this is precisely why you have those communication offices/staff in place.

Magill really should have known (and performed) better on such a public stage.  They all should have.

Quote from: simpleSimon on December 08, 2023, 08:46:56 AMUniversities Face Congressional Inquiry and Angry Donors Over Handling of Antisemitism
By Alan Blinder, Anemona Hartocollis and Stephanie Saul

Harvard, M.I.T. and the University of Pennsylvania on Thursday faced threats from donors, demands that their presidents resign and a congressional investigation as repercussions mounted over the universities' responses to antisemitism on campus.

At Penn, university trustees discussed the future of Elizabeth Magill, its president, whose congressional testimony on Tuesday set off a furor when she dodged the question of whether she would discipline students for calling for the genocide of Jews.

One wonders if she would have been as non-committal if there were students calling for the genocide of Muslims, (or various other groups, for that matter).

They did a very poor job of parsing out the difference between the act itself (with no particular "perp" attached), which is always reprehensible, and "the process" of investigating such acts and punishing those responsible.

Also, lets be honest, they were probably deathly afraid of stepping into Mideast politics.

QuoteHarvard President Apologizes for Congressional Testimony on Antisemitism (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/08/us/claudine-gay-harvard-president-apology-crimson.html)
The president, Claudine Gay, told the campus newspaper that she "should have had the presence of mind" to answer differently.

Here's the article:

QuoteHarvard's president apologized for her testimony before Congress about how she responded to antisemitism on campus — another sign that the controversy over her remarks and similar comments by the presidents of M.I.T. and the University of Pennsylvania was not going away.

"I am sorry," Claudine Gay, Harvard's president, said in an interview that the campus newspaper, The Harvard Crimson, published on Friday. "Words matter."

"When words amplify distress and pain, I don't know how you could feel anything but regret," she said.

The interview came as Dr. Gay, along with Elizabeth Magill of Penn and Sally Kornbluth of M.I.T., faced a storm of repercussions from the hearing, including a demand from more than 70 members of Congress — all of them Republicans, except for three Democrats — that they resign.

Their testimony "showed a complete absence of moral clarity," the lawmakers said. They added that the testimony "illuminated the problematic double standards and dehumanization of the Jewish communities" fostered by the presidents, and said all three should leave their jobs.

Asked during Tuesday's hearing whether urging the genocide of the Jewish people amounted to defying Harvard policies against bullying and harassment, Dr. Gay replied, "It can be, depending on the context."

Dr. Gay said in the interview that she had become "caught up" in a volley of questions on Tuesday from Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, and "should have had the presence of mind" during the exchange to "return to my guiding truth, which is that calls for violence against our Jewish community — threats to our Jewish students — have no place at Harvard and will never go unchallenged."

Ms. Magill has drawn some of the sharpest criticism for her testimony, with influential donors and alumni pressing for her ouster from Penn. One contributor moved to rescind a gift worth roughly $100 million. Penn trustees, who met in emergency session on Thursday, were scheduled to meet again on Sunday evening.

But the uproar surrounding Dr. Gay has also been infused with debate over how universities handle racial issues.

Bill Ackman, a billionaire investor and Harvard alumnus, insisted on social media this week that the appointment of Dr. Gay was connected to the university's goals for diversity, equity and inclusion.

"Shrinking the pool of candidates based on required race, gender, and/or sexual orientation criteria is not the right approach to identifying the best leaders for our most prestigious universities," Mr. Ackman wrote in a post on X. "And it is also not good for those awarded the office of president who find themselves in a role that they would likely not have obtained were it not for a fat finger on the scale."

Harvard said it had no comment on Mr. Ackman's post. In her announcement last year about Dr. Gay's elevation to the role of president, Penny Pritzker, who led the presidential search committee, said more than 600 people had been nominated to lead Harvard. When Ms. Pritzker opened the search last year, she said that Harvard was seeking a person with, among other qualities, "a commitment to embracing diversity along many dimensions as a source of strength."

Ibram X. Kendi, the director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, argued Friday on X that it was "racist and sexist" to "assume superior White and male leaders earn their positions through merit, and inferior Black and woman leaders receive their positions due to identity."

Dr. Kendi added, "These ideas show up in times of crisis: The Black and woman leader is assumed to be the problem." He declined further comment.

Dr. Gay has offered no public signal that she is considering resigning, and there has been no indication that she is facing as grave a revolt as Ms. Magill is at Penn. The fallout from Dr. Gay's testimony has nevertheless been conspicuous, including Rabbi David Wolpe's resignation on Thursday from the antisemitism advisory committee that Harvard formed after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel.

Rabbi Wolpe said in an interview on Friday that he had been uncomfortable being perceived as the "voice of the Jewish community" on the panel.

"I was left with a job that had a lot of accountability and no authority," he said, noting that he felt he could still "be a force for good" by meeting with students in his capacity as a visiting scholar at the Harvard Divinity School.

In a series of posts on X announcing his resignation, Rabbi Wolpe had described Dr. Gay as a "kind and thoughtful person," but said he had concluded that combating Harvard's troubles was "the work of more than a committee or a single university."

Rabbi Wolpe added: "It is not going to be changed by hiring or firing a single person, or posting on X, or yelling at people who don't post as you wish when you wish, as though posting is the summation of one's moral character. This is the task of educating a generation, and also a vast unlearning."

Dr. Gay said in a statement that the rabbi had "deepened my and our community's understanding of the unacceptable presence of antisemitism here at Harvard." She added that she was "committed to ensuring no member of our Jewish community faces this hate in any form."

But Rabbi Wolpe said there had been immense damage to the credibility of some universities that had been pulled into intense debate since October. Parents, he said in the interview on Friday, were calling and saying they no longer dreamed of sending their children to schools like Harvard and Penn.

"When I was growing up, such a thing was unthinkable," Rabbi Wolpe said.

One Law Firm Prepared Both Penn and Harvard for Hearing on Antisemitism
By Lauren Hirsch

At a congressional hearing on Tuesday, the leaders of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology gave carefully worded — and seemingly evasive — answers to the question of whether they would discipline students who called for the genocide of Jews. The intense criticism that followed led many to wonder: Who had prepared them for testimony?

It turns out that one of America's best known white-shoe law firms, WilmerHale, was intricately involved.

Two of the school presidents, Claudine Gay of Harvard and Elizabeth Magill of Penn, prepared separately for the congressional testimony with teams from WilmerHale, according to two people familiar with the situation who asked not to be identified because the preparation process is confidential.

WilmerHale also had a meeting with M.I.T.'s president, Sally Kornbluth, one of the people said.

The firm, created by a merger in 2004 between Wilmer Cutler Pickering of Washington and Hale and Dorr of Boston, has offices across the United States, Europe and Asia. It is best known in the legal industry for defending clients facing government investigations and enforcement. Among its best-known clients have been the oil giant BP PLC, which the law firm represented during government investigations after an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and President Richard Nixon, whom it represented in his fight with Congress over the Watergate tapes.

It also has an extensive practice working with universities.

Lawyers for WilmerHale sat in the front row at the hearing on Tuesday. They included Alyssa DaCunha, who leads the firm's congressional investigations and crisis management practices, and Felicia Ellsworth, the vice chair of the firm's litigation and controversy department.

Both Ms. DaCunha and Ms. Ellsworth were involved in preparing the presidents of Harvard and Penn for the hearings, one person familiar with the process said. The schools each independently hired WilmerHale, and the firm created separate teams to prepare each president. The firm already had ties with all three schools.

A spokeswoman for the firm declined to comment.

Preparing for congressional testimony involves blending legal caution with political savvy and common sense, legal experts say. Lawyers typically advise those testifying to be mindful of the law but to also consider headlines that could come out of the hearing. That can be a difficult task after hours of pointed questioning.

"I got caught up in what had become at that point, an extended, combative exchange about policies and procedures," Dr. Gay told The Harvard Crimson.

Steven Davidoff Solomon, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, said that the college presidents appeared to be "prepared to give answers in the court — and not a public forum."

But the responsibility of university presidents, Mr. Solomon said, is "not to give legal answers, it's to give the vision of the university."

In one of the most charged moments of testimony, Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, asked the three presidents whether calls for violence against Jews would violate their school's code of conduct.

Dr. Kornbluth of M.I.T. responded that they might, "if targeted at individuals, not making public statements." Ms. Magill of Penn said a call for violence against Jews could be considered a violation "if it is directed and severe, pervasive, it is harassment." When pushed to answer yes or no, she responded, "it is a context-dependent decision." And Dr. Gay of Harvard responded, "It can be, depending on the context."

The responses immediately set off a flurry of criticism. A House committee opened an investigation into the three institutions, and a donor clawed back a large donation to Penn. A day after Wharton's board of advisers called for Ms. Magill's resignation, Wharton's undergraduate executive board issued a statement on Friday in support of the change in leadership.

Critics said the answers appeared to be too focused on whether conduct would violate the First Amendment.

"Once they were in that box, I think they stuck with their preparation," said Edward Rock, a professor of law at New York University. "That's why they came across so wooden. And then, afterward, they realized it was a terrible answer."

Dr. Gay of Harvard issued a clarification on Wednesday: "Let me be clear: Calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any religious or ethnic group, are vile. They have no place at Harvard, and those who threaten our Jewish students will be held to account."

Ms. Magill of Penn said in a video, "I was not focused on, but I should have been, the irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of Jewish people is a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate."

Have any students actually been calling for a genocide of Jews?

Or are the free speech crybabies just crying when they hear speech that is free?

Though I could see how someone might interpret a political statement that way, I could also see how someone might not have actually meant that statement in that way (as an example, the "river to see the sea" establishment of a Palestinian state). Other than that, I don't know as though I have actually heard of anyone specifically calling for the genocide of Jews at these schools, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Not that I want to help Stefanik out, but i do believe she was putting it out there as a hypothetical (though maybe with some snark, so as to suggest it kinda sort has happened).

This is why I keep my opinions limited to my class content and professional duties, which (thankfully) have nothing to do with these type of current events.  No one is entitled to mine opinion on anything else...and as NOT an admin, I can get away with that.  What a mess.

Penn's President Resigns, After Her Responses About Antisemitism
By Stephanie Saul

The president of the University of Pennsylvania, M. Elizabeth Magill, resigned on Saturday, four days after her testimony at a congressional hearing in which she seemed to evade the question of whether students who called for the genocide of Jews should be disciplined.

The announcement, in an email sent to the Penn community from Scott L. Bok, the chairman of the board of trustees, followed months of intense pressure from Jewish students, alumni and donors, who claimed that she had not taken their concerns about antisemitism on campus seriously.

Ms. Magill is the first president of a major university to leave office as part of the fallout from the protests that have engulfed campuses since the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza.

With students deeply divided over the war, university presidents have tried to balance pro-Palestinian protesters' right to free speech with concerns that some of their language has been antisemitic.

Ms. Magill, a lawyer, came to Penn in 2022 as a champion of free speech, but she ultimately found herself undone by trying to follow that legal principle.

In the congressional hearing on Tuesday, she gave lawyerly responses to a complicated question involving speech. Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, said that students had chanted support for intifada, an Arabic word that means uprising and that many Jews hear as a call for violence against them.

After parrying back and forth, Ms. Stefanik asked, "Calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?"

Ms. Magill replied, "If it is directed and severe, pervasive, it is harassment."

Ms. Stefanik responded, "So the answer is yes."

Ms. Magill said, "It is a context-dependent decision, congresswoman."

Ms. Stefanik exclaimed: "That's your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context?"

Two other university presidents — Claudine Gay of Harvard and Sally Kornbluth of M.I.T. — testified with Ms. Magill and made similar statements. Free-speech scholars said that they were legally correct.

But Ms. Magill's remarks failed to meet a moment of moral clarity for many of the university's Jewish students, faculty and alumni, and set off a wave of criticism that included the state's Democratic governor, Josh Shapiro, and its two Democratic U.S. senators, John Fetterman and Bob Casey. Even the White House weighed in.

Ms. Magill apologized Wednesday evening for her testimony.

"In that moment, I was focused on our university's longstanding policies aligned with the U.S. Constitution, which say that speech alone is not punishable," she said in a video. "I was not focused on, but I should have been, the irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of Jewish people is a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate. It's evil — plain and simple."

She added, "In my view, it would be harassment or intimidation."

In a response to her apology, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a campus free speech group, said in a statement that it would be a mistake for Penn to revise its speech policies in response to the congressional hearing.

Ms. Magill had already been embattled for months, before the Oct. 7 attacks.

In the summer, donors asked her to cancel a planned Palestinian literary conference on campus. Ms. Magill, citing free speech, said that it would go on as planned in September...

The three university presidents are bosses of private universities. The First Amendment is irrelevant. As such, they were correctly asked about their schools' policies. They all waffled about what they were told the First Amendment implies. President Gay acknowledged as much. [The lawyers were clearly fools.]

My view is that these women are extremely adept at weaving with the trustees, the faculty, the administration, and students, all the interest groups within universities. They are highly skilled at that! What they have no competence with is explaining things to a broader audience. Their testimony has been seen by many millions of people on Youtube, the most ever for a Congressional hearing.

A solution is self-evident. All that private universities have to do is put speech restrictions into their policies, if they so choose. Harvard has the least free speech in the US of A, according to a FIRE survey. Competition among universities will solve the problem of people being offended or denied their [private, local] rights. This of course would cost Penn, e.g. $100 million, which is why they don't want to be honest.

Since so much tuition and research funding in America is paid through government money, is any school truly "private"? (other than the hardcore wingnut colleges in Florida, that is)

Quote from: Ruralguy on December 08, 2023, 09:12:00 AMDuring the days of Title IX furor, many schools developed policies that included a full investigative process, a hearing, and now also ability to cross-examine witnesses. Many schools then also had discriminatory behavior fall under the same process. The reason I bring this up is that schools then also learned to be very careful about naming any person as victim or a perpetrator. They learned to be very general in saying that various claims would be "handled by the process." To me, it seems that is  what most of them were doing at this hearing, but they were not handling it well. It reminds of the answer Michael Dukakis gave at a debate in 1988 when someone questioned him about what he would do with a criminal who (hypothetically!) raped his wife. He just gave a rote answer about the process. Its not that it was "wrong" then or "wrong" now, but there's a difference between technically correct and right in the moment. Its better to take a two pronged approach and say something like "Of course any act of antisemitism is horrendous and I would never tolerate such acts. However, when someone is accused of something , we have to investigate it thoroughly, otherwise there's too much of a chance that an innocent person can be falsely charged of this or anything else, and we wouldn't want that."  They then could then go on to mention probable punishments for such acts.  But Stefanik and others were just too interested in playing "gotcha" to make even such a nuanced approach seem reasonable.

This is basically my take as well. They did not really say anything that is substantively wrong, but they handled it terribly from a PR perspective.

Quote from: marshwiggle on December 08, 2023, 09:34:51 AM

Quote from: simpleSimon on December 08, 2023, 08:46:56 AMUniversities Face Congressional Inquiry and Angry Donors Over Handling of Antisemitism
By Alan Blinder, Anemona Hartocollis and Stephanie Saul

Harvard, M.I.T. and the University of Pennsylvania on Thursday faced threats from donors, demands that their presidents resign and a congressional investigation as repercussions mounted over the universities' responses to antisemitism on campus.

At Penn, university trustees discussed the future of Elizabeth Magill, its president, whose congressional testimony on Tuesday set off a furor when she dodged the question of whether she would discipline students for calling for the genocide of Jews.

One wonders if she would have been as non-committal if there were students calling for the genocide of Muslims, (or various other groups, for that matter).

Some Christian and Jewish/Zionist student groups openly call for Israel to settle the West Bank in its totality, which would presumably include the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the area. Have any university presidents being fired or called before congress for not disciplining those folks?

I would imagine the number of disciplined incidents of that sort of thing are small, but there are all sorts of incidents involving religious or ethnic discrimination/harassment at many, many schools. Even my tiny school with few Jews has had several antisemitic incidents over the years. There have also been a number of incidents against various other groups in the minority. So, I highly doubt there'd be a definitive "no" in any category (across the entire country, that is). I think it would help immensely if administrations completely divorced themselves from any external politics so that they could avoid playing these games, and just make a decision based on what exactly happens in a particular incident.  But that's probably not practical and may not even be possible at public institutions.

Quote from: Ruralguy on December 09, 2023, 05:56:18 PMI would imagine the number of disciplined incidents of that sort of thing are small, but there are all sorts of incidents involving religious or ethnic discrimination/harassment at many, many schools. Even my tiny school with few Jews has had several antisemitic incidents over the years. There have also been a number of incidents against various other groups in the minority. So, I highly doubt there'd be a definitive "no" in any category (across the entire country, that is). I think it would help immensely if administrations completely divorced themselves from any external politics so that they could avoid playing these games, and just make a decision based on what exactly happens in a particular incident.  But that's probably not practical and may not even be possible at public institutions.

You mean, like what was expected before academics started identifying themselves as "activists"?

I'll just say more precisely what I mean.

I mean universities should not be making public statements regarding Israel or George Floyd. Bad things happen in the world. Some (most) of these situations are complicated. For some people, it might be easy to discern black or white hats, but for much of the world, its just some people want one thing and others want another, and they get in each others way because there have been issues building for decades, centuries, or millenia.

I am not saying that individuals shouldn't be able to protest or make statements, etc.. Far from. I believe strongly in free speech. I just think universities and colleges are likely to really step in it if/when they take a side, even if the side seems "obvious."

That being said, if someone asks a university President whether antisemitism (or racism or sexism or ism-ism) is bad, she (or he in future cases) should probably say "yes."

Quote from: Ruralguy on December 10, 2023, 10:28:54 AMThat being said, if someone asks a university President whether antisemitism (or racism or sexism or ism-ism) is bad, she (or he in future cases) should probably say "yes."

To be fair, that would be an easy question to answer.  The question, more of a challenge, leveled at McGill was much more loaded.

Yes, but she should have answered the question as if she had simply been asked whether antisemitism is bad.

Quote from: Ruralguy on December 10, 2023, 03:44:21 PMYes, but she should have answered the question as if she had simply been asked whether antisemitism is bad.

Sure.  This is what actually got her in trouble, if the NYT is to be believed.

QuoteAfter parrying back and forth, Ms. Stefanik asked, "Calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?"

Ms. Magill replied, "If it is directed and severe, pervasive, it is harassment."

Ms. Stefanik responded, "So the answer is yes."

Ms. Magill said, "It is a context-dependent decision, congresswoman."

Ms. Stefanik exclaimed: "That's your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context?"

Magill took the bait.  But what she is saying makes sense: it is okay to be disturbed by Israel's actions, and Palestine's while we are at it, but that is not necessarily "harassment."  She just couched her response like an academic.  Which was her big mistake.  It allowed Stefanik to mischaracterize and misdirect Magill's comment. 

OPINION
DAVID FRENCH

What the University Presidents Got Right and Wrong About Antisemitic Speech

From the NY Times. (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/opinion/antisemitism-university-presidents.html)

QuoteAs I watched the presidents of Harvard, M.I.T. and the University of Pennsylvania struggle last week to respond to harsh congressional questioning about the prevalence of antisemitism on their campuses, I had a singular thought: Censorship helped put these presidents in their predicament and censorship will not help them escape.

To understand what I mean, we have to understand what, exactly, was wrong — and right — with their responses in the now-viral exchange with Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York. The key moment occurred when Stefanik asked whether "calling for the genocide of Jews" would violate school policies. The answers the presidents gave were lawyerly versions of "it depends" or "context matters."

There was an immediate explosion of outrage, and the president of Penn, Elizabeth Magill, resigned on Saturday. But this is genocide we're talking about! How can "context" matter in that context? If that's not harassment and bullying, then what is?

But I had a different response. I'm a former litigator who spent much of my legal career battling censorship on college campuses, and the thing that struck me about the presidents' answers wasn't their legal insufficiency, but rather their stunning hypocrisy. And it's that hypocrisy, not the presidents' understanding of the law, that has created a campus crisis.

First, let's deal with the law. Harvard, Penn and M.I.T. are each private universities. Unlike public schools, they're not bound by the First Amendment and they therefore possess enormous freedom to fashion their own, custom speech policies. But while they are not bound by law to protect free speech, they are required, as educational institutions that receive federal funds, to protect students against discriminatory harassment, including — in some instances — student-on-student peer harassment.

Academic freedom advocates have long called for the nation's most prestigious private universities to protect free speech by using First Amendment principles to inform campus policies. After all, should students and faculty at Harvard enjoy fewer free speech rights than, say, those at Bunker Hill Community College, a public school not far from Harvard's campus?

If Harvard, M.I.T. and Penn had chosen to model their policies after the First Amendment, many of the presidents' controversial answers would be largely correct. When it comes to prohibiting speech, even the most vile forms of speech, context matters. A lot.

For example, surprising though it may be, the First Amendment does largely protect calls for violence. In case after case, the Supreme Court has held that in the absence of an actual, immediate threat — such as an incitement to violence — the government cannot punish a person who advocates violence. And no, there is not even a genocide exception to this rule.

But that changes for publicly-funded universities when speech veers into targeted harassment that is "so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim's access to an educational opportunity or benefit." The First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh has helpfully articulated the difference between prohibited harassment and protected speech as often the difference between "one-to-one speech" and "one-to-many speech." The legal commentator David Lat explained further, writing: "If I repeatedly send antisemitic emails and texts to a single Jewish student, that is far more likely to constitute harassment than if I set up an antisemitic website available to the entire world."

As a result, what we've seen on campus is a mixture of protected antisemitic (as well as anti-Islamic) speech and prohibited harassment. Chanting "globalize the intifada" or "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" at a public protest is protected speech. Tearing down another person's posters is not. (My rights to free speech do not include a right to block another person's speech.) Trapping Jewish students in a library while protesters pound on library doors is not protected speech either.

So if the university presidents were largely (though clumsily) correct about the legal balance, why the outrage? To quote the presidents back to themselves, context matters. For decades now, we've watched as campus administrators from coast to coast have constructed a comprehensive web of policies and practices intended to suppress so-called hate speech and to support students who find themselves distressed by speech they find offensive.

The result has been a network of speech codes, bias response teams, safe spaces and glossaries of microaggressions that are all designed to protect students from alleged emotional harm. But not all students. When, as a student at Harvard Law School, I was booed and hissed and told to "go die" for articulating pro-life or other conservative views, exactly zero administrators cared about my feelings. Nor did it cross my mind to ask them for help. I was an adult. I could handle my classmates' anger.

Yet how sensitive are administrators to student feelings under other circumstances? I had to chuckle when I read my colleague Pamela Paul's excellent column on the Columbia School of Social Work and she quoted a school glossary that uses the term "folx." Why spell the word with an "x"? Because some apparently believe the letter "s" in "folks" renders the term insufficiently inclusive. I kid you not.

Moreover, each of the schools represented at the hearing has its own checkered past on free speech. Harvard is the worst-rated school for free expression in America, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. (I served as the group's president in 2004 and 2005.) So even if the presidents' lawyerly answers were correct, it's more than fair to ask, where was this commitment to free expression in the past?

That said, some of the responses to campus outrages have been just as distressing as the hypocrisy shown by the school presidents. With all due apology to Homer Simpson and his legendary theory of alcohol, it's as if many campus critics view censorship as the "cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems."

Universities have censored conservatives? Then censor progressives too. Declare the extreme slogans of pro-Palestinian protesters to be harassment, and pursue them vigorously. Give them the same treatment you've given other groups who hold offensive views. But that's the wrong answer. It's doubling down on the problem.

At the same time, however, it would be wrong to carry on as if there isn't a need for fundamental change. The rule cannot be that Jews must endure free speech at its most painful, while favored campus constituencies enjoy the warmth of college administrators and the protection of campus speech codes. The status quo is intolerable.

The best, clearest plan for reform I've seen comes from Harvard's own Steven Pinker, a psychologist. He writes that campuses should enact "clear and coherent" free speech policies. They should adopt a posture of "institutional neutrality" on public controversy. ("Universities are forums, not protagonists.") They should end "heckler's vetoes, building takeovers, classroom invasions, intimidations, blockades, assaults."

But reform can't be confined to policies. It also has to apply to cultures. As Pinker notes, that means disempowering a diversity, equity and inclusion apparatus that is itself all too often an engine of censorship and extreme political bias. Most importantly, universities need to take affirmative steps to embrace greater viewpoint diversity. Ideological monocultures breed groupthink, intolerance and oppression.

ADVERTISEMENT

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Universities must absorb the fundamental truth that the best answer to bad speech is better speech, not censorship. Yesterday I watched and listened to a video of a Jewish student's emotional confrontation with pro-Palestinian protesters at Columbia University. Her voice shakes and there's no doubt that it was hard for her to speak. I'd urge you to listen to the entire thing. She seeks a "genuine and real conversation" but also tells her audience exactly what it means to her when she hears terms like "Zionist dogs."

Confronting hatred with courageous speech is far better than confronting hatred with censorship. It is obviously important to protect students from harassment. I'm glad to see that the Department of Education is opening numerous Title VI investigations (including an investigation of Harvard) in response to reports of harassment on campus. But do not protect students from speech. Let them grow up and engage with even the most vile of ideas. The answer to campus hypocrisy isn't more censorship. It's true liberty. Without that liberty, the hypocrisy will reign for decades more.

I basically agree with French (in fact, I more or less said this several posts ago).

That is a great pice. The quotation that (for me) sums it all up:

QuoteBut I had a different response. I'm a former litigator who spent much of my legal career battling censorship on college campuses, and the thing that struck me about the presidents' answers wasn't their legal insufficiency, but rather their stunning hypocrisy. And it's that hypocrisy, not the presidents' understanding of the law, that has created a campus crisis.

One set of rules for everybody, consistently applied, would be defensible.

The issue is that people conflate anti-Semitism with criticism over the government of Israel.

Bombing innocent citizens in Gaza is not defending Israel's right to exist.

Quote from: ciao_yall on December 11, 2023, 06:39:01 AMThe issue is that people conflate anti-Semitism with criticism over the government of Israel.

Bombing innocent citizens in Gaza is not defending Israel's right to exist.

No it isn't. Nor is calling Hamas a terrorist organization Islamophobic.

The last few statements by both Marsh and Cia are correct. There's a lot of conflating and a lot of jumping to conclusions. I won't write it all out since doing so will start to look like the sort of thing that's gotten past fora members voted off the island. But I'll sum by saying that criticizing Israel's actions isn't tantamount to calling for genocide of Jews, and stating some obvious things about Hamas (responsible for heinous acts of Oct 7, etc.) isn't Islamophobia. The fact that some famous antisemites or Islamophobes start from these points is surely cause for concern, but isn't cause enough to jump to conclusions for every instance of such comments.

Quote from: ciao_yall on December 11, 2023, 06:39:01 AMThe issue is that people conflate anti-Semitism with criticism over the government of Israel.

Bombing innocent citizens in Gaza is not defending Israel's right to exist.

Alas, bombing innocent civilians is in accord with the rules of war, as contained in the various Geneva Conventions from and after 1949. What you can't do is just kill civilians. But you can kill civilians if they are collateral damage to a worthwhile military target.

Given Hamas' human shield strategy, not killing civilians would be tantamount to not allowing Israel to exist.

So, a hypothetical question. What if I were a student or professor at Penn, or anywhere, and pointed out that Gaza was essentially a part of Egypt prior to the Six Day War? And that Israel began the Six Day War with preemptive air strikes on Egypt and other Arab air fields?

if you are asking whether or not such a comment is antisemitic or even generally anti-Israel on the face of it I'd have to say no. Of course, there may be motivations behind the remark that are impure, but maybe not. So, I'd say that an old fashioned conversation in normal tones would be necessary to find out.

As far as the precise facts stated, I'd have to go back and read up on the Six Day War.

This is pretty good on the origins of the Six Day War:

Origins of the Six Day War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Six-Day_War)

The article claims that recent scholarship shows that nobody wanted this war. Might have elements of the beginning of WW I. Whatever. The other side mobilizes, you don't wanna be caught flat footed.

I think in the current climate Rep. Stefanik and others would demand a university take action.

Note: anti-Semitism is awful, and clearly things in the US and around the world have grown worse in the past eight years. We worry every day for our grandson's and in-laws safety.

Quote from: dismalist on December 11, 2023, 12:50:48 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on December 11, 2023, 06:39:01 AMThe issue is that people conflate anti-Semitism with criticism over the government of Israel.

Bombing innocent citizens in Gaza is not defending Israel's right to exist.

Alas, bombing innocent civilians is in accord with the rules of war, as contained in the various Geneva Conventions from and after 1949. What you can't do is just kill civilians. But you can kill civilians if they are collateral damage to a worthwhile military target.

Given Hamas' human shield strategy, not killing civilians would be tantamount to not allowing Israel to exist.

There are rules in international law that limit the extent to which civilians can be killed as collateral damage. Whether Israel is breaking those rules, particularly proportionality, is difficult to say, but it is not necessarily the case that Israel has the right (under international law) to kill as many people as it wishes in pursuit of eradicating Hamas.

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2023, 04:43:31 PM

Quote from: dismalist on December 11, 2023, 12:50:48 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on December 11, 2023, 06:39:01 AMThe issue is that people conflate anti-Semitism with criticism over the government of Israel.

Bombing innocent citizens in Gaza is not defending Israel's right to exist.

Alas, bombing innocent civilians is in accord with the rules of war, as contained in the various Geneva Conventions from and after 1949. What you can't do is just kill civilians. But you can kill civilians if they are collateral damage to a worthwhile military target.

Given Hamas' human shield strategy, not killing civilians would be tantamount to not allowing Israel to exist.

There are rules in international law that limit the extent to which civilians can be killed as collateral damage. Whether Israel is breaking those rules, particularly proportionality, is difficult to say, but it is not necessarily the case that Israel has the right (under international law) to kill as many people as it wishes in pursuit of eradicating Hamas.

Never said it did, and more important, does Israel do it?

Right now, the killings are about two civilians for each Hamas operative. That is surely legal, for it's an extremely small number historically.

Quote from: dismalist on December 11, 2023, 04:57:52 PMRight now, the killings are about two civilians for each Hamas operative. That is surely legal, for it's an extremely small number historically.

I'm really dubious of this claim. That would mean around 6,000 Hamas operatives. And how would one know anyway in most cases?

It's not like you are going to find a good guy in this scenario.  It is not like Russia or Ukraine, or any other political / cultural conflict anywhere.  It is tragic and full of atrocity and ugly, ugly, ugly.

Quote from: dismalist on December 11, 2023, 04:57:52 PM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2023, 04:43:31 PM

Quote from: dismalist on December 11, 2023, 12:50:48 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on December 11, 2023, 06:39:01 AMThe issue is that people conflate anti-Semitism with criticism over the government of Israel.

Bombing innocent citizens in Gaza is not defending Israel's right to exist.

Alas, bombing innocent civilians is in accord with the rules of war, as contained in the various Geneva Conventions from and after 1949. What you can't do is just kill civilians. But you can kill civilians if they are collateral damage to a worthwhile military target.

Given Hamas' human shield strategy, not killing civilians would be tantamount to not allowing Israel to exist.

There are rules in international law that limit the extent to which civilians can be killed as collateral damage. Whether Israel is breaking those rules, particularly proportionality, is difficult to say, but it is not necessarily the case that Israel has the right (under international law) to kill as many people as it wishes in pursuit of eradicating Hamas.

Never said it did, and more important, does Israel do it?

Right now, the killings are about two civilians for each Hamas operative. That is surely legal, for it's an extremely small number historically.

I don't know where you are getting those numbers or how Israel could possible measure that in a credible way, or what makes it an "extremely small number" - small compared to what?

According to the UN, 2/3rds of the ~18000 people that have been killed in Gaza are women and children. 1.8 of the 2.2 million people in the territory have been displaced. The place was already a humanitarian disaster - more densely packed than Hong Kong and with very little potable water - and it is considerably worse now. Of course, it is Hamas that started this particular conflict, in a brutal and awful way, but Israeli leadership had quite a hand in contributing to the situation in Gaza and even in supporting Hamas long before October 7th (not to mention encouraging settlement and settler violence in the West Bank).

None of this necessarily means that Israel is violating international law or rules of war, not that those things particularly matter anyway. But it does raise significant questions about the ethics of their approach and about whether the US government should be helping them to carry out this assault in this manner.

Taking the conflict as given, and taking a calculus of total lives saved, or fewest lives lost in total, where one doesn't distinguish between the opponents, as the moral objective, my evaluation is that the IDF is acting in a morally desirable way. That's likely the intention of the rules of war, even if that's not explicit.

My impression is that when countries or entities go to war, nobody in control of things says, "Let's see, what are the rules of war? We must make sure to abide by them."

Quote from: dismalist on December 11, 2023, 12:50:48 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on December 11, 2023, 06:39:01 AMThe issue is that people conflate anti-Semitism with criticism over the government of Israel.

Bombing innocent citizens in Gaza is not defending Israel's right to exist.

Alas, bombing innocent civilians is in accord with the rules of war, as contained in the various Geneva Conventions from and after 1949. What you can't do is just kill civilians. But you can kill civilians if they are collateral damage to a worthwhile military target.

Given Hamas' human shield strategy, not killing civilians would be tantamount to not allowing Israel to exist.

There is a difference between fighting Hamas when they cross your borders, versus bombing schools and hospitals to kill 1,000 civilians hoping there might be a terrorist hiding in the basement.

Context matters.

Quote from: ciao_yall on December 12, 2023, 06:37:24 AM

Quote from: dismalist on December 11, 2023, 12:50:48 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on December 11, 2023, 06:39:01 AMThe issue is that people conflate anti-Semitism with criticism over the government of Israel.

Bombing innocent citizens in Gaza is not defending Israel's right to exist.

Alas, bombing innocent civilians is in accord with the rules of war, as contained in the various Geneva Conventions from and after 1949. What you can't do is just kill civilians. But you can kill civilians if they are collateral damage to a worthwhile military target.

Given Hamas' human shield strategy, not killing civilians would be tantamount to not allowing Israel to exist.

There is a difference between fighting Hamas when they cross your borders, versus bombing schools and hospitals to kill 1,000 civilians hoping there might be a terrorist hiding in the basement.

Context matters.

I'm not totally comfortable with everything the IDF is doing, (who is???), but this is ridiculously hyperbolic. The tunnels Hamas has all through Gaza are pretty clearly apparent, and Israel has warned ahead of time about where they were going to bomb.  (And yes, there is a big problem with there being very little choice in where people can go instead. But it's definitely not the case of intentionally bombing civilians and hoping to hit a terrorist.)

Quote from: marshwiggle on December 12, 2023, 07:05:18 AM

Quote from: ciao_yall on December 12, 2023, 06:37:24 AM

Quote from: dismalist on December 11, 2023, 12:50:48 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on December 11, 2023, 06:39:01 AMThe issue is that people conflate anti-Semitism with criticism over the government of Israel.

Bombing innocent citizens in Gaza is not defending Israel's right to exist.

Alas, bombing innocent civilians is in accord with the rules of war, as contained in the various Geneva Conventions from and after 1949. What you can't do is just kill civilians. But you can kill civilians if they are collateral damage to a worthwhile military target.

Given Hamas' human shield strategy, not killing civilians would be tantamount to not allowing Israel to exist.

There is a difference between fighting Hamas when they cross your borders, versus bombing schools and hospitals to kill 1,000 civilians hoping there might be a terrorist hiding in the basement.

Context matters.

I'm not totally comfortable with everything the IDF is doing, (who is???), but this is ridiculously hyperbolic. The tunnels Hamas has all through Gaza are pretty clearly apparent, and Israel has warned ahead of time about where they were going to bomb.  (And yes, there is a big problem with there being very little choice in where people can go instead. But it's definitely not the case of intentionally bombing civilians and hoping to hit a terrorist.)

Still, not a winning strategy for future global support and regional stability.

Quote from: ciao_yall on December 12, 2023, 07:22:27 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on December 12, 2023, 07:05:18 AM

Quote from: ciao_yall on December 12, 2023, 06:37:24 AM

Quote from: dismalist on December 11, 2023, 12:50:48 PM

Quote from: ciao_yall on December 11, 2023, 06:39:01 AMThe issue is that people conflate anti-Semitism with criticism over the government of Israel.

Bombing innocent citizens in Gaza is not defending Israel's right to exist.

Alas, bombing innocent civilians is in accord with the rules of war, as contained in the various Geneva Conventions from and after 1949. What you can't do is just kill civilians. But you can kill civilians if they are collateral damage to a worthwhile military target.

Given Hamas' human shield strategy, not killing civilians would be tantamount to not allowing Israel to exist.

There is a difference between fighting Hamas when they cross your borders, versus bombing schools and hospitals to kill 1,000 civilians hoping there might be a terrorist hiding in the basement.

Context matters.

I'm not totally comfortable with everything the IDF is doing, (who is???), but this is ridiculously hyperbolic. The tunnels Hamas has all through Gaza are pretty clearly apparent, and Israel has warned ahead of time about where they were going to bomb.  (And yes, there is a big problem with there being very little choice in where people can go instead. But it's definitely not the case of intentionally bombing civilians and hoping to hit a terrorist.)

Still, not a winning strategy for future global support and regional stability.

Absolutely. And the same goes for continued settlers on the West Bank.
The whole situation is analogous to the O.J Simpson trial, where Hamas is like O.J. and Israel is like Mark Fuhrman.

I think since about 1982, Israel has decided that they don't really care about winning the PR war. The one exception, which in reality only lasted a year at most, was the hubbub surrounding the Oslo accords. I suggest that they act in their interests and we act in ours, and that the two countries have some discussions regarding the intersecton of those interests

Quote from: Ruralguy on December 12, 2023, 08:39:57 AMI think since about 1982, Israel has decided that they don't really care about winning the PR war. The one exception, which in reality only lasted a year at most, was the hubbub surrounding the Oslo accords. I suggest that they act in their interests and we act in ours, and that the two countries have some discussions regarding the intersecton of those interests

The Israelis feel like they made a few decent offers over the years, but the Palestinians did not want to play ball. In the meantime, Israel has been thriving economically, making progress on normalizing relations with Arab nations, and it has essentially neutralized threats from Gaza and the West Bank. The Palestinian issue has thus been on the backburner politically, with no particular interest in attempting to alter what seemed like a stable status quo. Whatever flack Israel was taking on the PR side, it did not seem to be affecting things all that much.

Maybe the events of the last two months change all that, whether by prompting a shift in Israel's domestic politics or by leading Arab states to demand some concessions to the Palestinians as a condition for normalizing relations. I'm skeptical that either of these things will happen, but certainly we could be at a critical juncture.

Israel and Saudi have had some touchy feely relations, but including intelligence exchange for some years. This budding relationship ensued because the two sides understood they had a common enemy -- Iran. The October 7th attack was intended and timed to end that peace process. The parties fighting Israel are all Iranian proxies. These must be defeated for any peace process to flourish.

I heard Dennis Ross say this morning something along the lines of "never underestimate the ability for your enemy's enemy to just also be your enemy in the Middle East."

Along these lines, I'd be wary of seeing the elimination of one enemy as the magic bullet. Or rounding up one entity as an ally.

Quote from: dismalist on December 12, 2023, 01:33:46 PMIsrael and Saudi have had some touchy feely relations, but including intelligence exchange for some years. This budding relationship ensued because the two sides understood they had a common enemy -- Iran. The October 7th attack was intended and timed to end that peace process. The parties fighting Israel are all Iranian proxies. These must be defeated for any peace process to flourish.

Quote from: Ruralguy on December 12, 2023, 05:26:56 PMI heard Dennis Ross say this morning something along the lines of "never underestimate the ability for your enemy's enemy to just also be your enemy in the Middle East."

Along these lines, I'd be wary of seeing the elimination of one enemy as the magic bullet. Or rounding up one entity as an ally.

Nailing Iran's proxies is a necessary condition, not necessarily a sufficient condition for peace.

[I had never heard of Ross before. Judging from the Wikipedia entry on him, Ross believes he himself, and only he himself, is predestined to consummate Middle East peace. :-)]

Saudi was, by all accounts, on the verge of joining the Abraham Accords. That has been paused for the moment, but I imagine that talks will get back on track once this dies down. Rich countries in the region want to do business.

Is this the reason that Hamas attacked Israel? I doubt it is the primary reason. Certainly there is a deep sense of betrayal among Palestinians aimed at the Arab states that, it turns out, don't care so much about Palestinian statehood after all, yet Hamas was launching attacks on Israel since long before Israel and Saudi started normalizing relations. I think they saw a window of opportunity* and seized it. Was Iran involved? They do provide weapons and funding to Hamas, but then again Qatar gives money to Hamas as well, with the encouragement of Israel. More generally, it is hard to imagine that Hamas put their own lives and the lives of many thousands of Gazans in jeopardy just to appease the Iranians.

It is also very questionable that Hamas can be eliminated and even more so that PA could be installed to govern Gaza. More likely is that Hamas will regroup or will be replaced with some other radical group, and this will all play out again in ten years or so.

* Israel was facing internal turmoil and focusing its military attention on the West Bank.

See the BBC news for updates and also background information on the situation.

The sad part is that hostages don't seem to be a priority. Most governments would have negotiated the release of all the hostages before bombing territory that is "suspected" of housing them. It was also surprising that the Palestinians released in the first two negotiated release of some of the hostages were mostly women and children who had not been convicted of any crimes, but merely accused of throwing stones at settlers, many of them illegaly occupying or trying to occupy territory.

QuoteHeavy rain adds to Gazans' misery as Israeli bombardment continues (https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-67687628)

QuoteIsrael Gaza: UN General Assembly demands immediate ceasefire (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67699508)

QuoteAs Israel presses its military offensive across Gaza, the army has been repeatedly advising some two million civilians to move to a "humanitarian zone" smaller than London's Heathrow Airport (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67646964)

QuoteIsrael-Gaza war: Half of Gaza's population is starving, warns UN (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67670679)

The latest from the UN:

QuoteU.N. General Assembly Votes for Israel-Hamas Cease-Fire (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/12/world/middleeast/un-general-assembly-israel-cease-fire.html), Countering U.S. Veto
About three-quarters of the body's members voted in favor of the nonbinding resolution. The result underscored the isolation of Israel and the United States.

Exerpts from the article:

QuoteThe U.N. General Assembly demanded an immediate cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war in an overwhelming vote on Tuesday that highlighted much of the world's desire to bring the bloody conflict to an end.

About three-quarters of the body's members voted in favor of the nonbinding resolution, underscoring the isolation of Israel and the United States, which last week blocked a cease-fire resolution in the Security Council.

Resounding applause and cheers erupted after the vote was announced: 153 in favor, 10 against and 23 abstentions. The resolution required two-thirds majority for passage.

QuoteMore than 15,000 people, many of them women and children, have been killed in Gaza, according to local health officials, since Israel declared war on Hamas after the militant group launched a terrorist attack on Oct. 7, killing more than 1,200 people and taking 240 others hostage.

General Assembly resolutions are never legally binding, but they carry political weight and are a symbolic reflection of the wider perspective among the U.N.'s 193 members.

The countries that joined the U.S. and Israel in rejecting the cease-fire resolution on Tuesday were Austria, the Czech Republic, Guatemala, Liberia, Micronesia, Paraguay and Papua New Guinea and Nauru. Among the countries that abstained were Britain, Hungary, South Sudan and Germany.

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2023, 08:05:56 PMIt is also very questionable that Hamas can be eliminated

This is the issue. If Hamas would release all of the remaining hostages, there'd be very little international support for Israel's continuing offensive. That's the one tangible reason they have for continuing.

But clearly, Hamas doesn't care about, (or is actually in favour of), civilian casualties in Gaza since that is all just bad publicity for Israel.

Unless and until the hostages are released, it's hard to see any realistic endgame for Israel. The elimination of Hamas, as stated above, is unlikely, and more importantly, impossible to prove even if it it were possible to achieve.

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2023, 09:38:20 AM

Quote from: Ruralguy on December 12, 2023, 08:39:57 AMI think since about 1982, Israel has decided that they don't really care about winning the PR war. The one exception, which in reality only lasted a year at most, was the hubbub surrounding the Oslo accords. I suggest that they act in their interests and we act in ours, and that the two countries have some discussions regarding the intersecton of those interests

The Israelis feel like they made a few decent offers over the years, but the Palestinians did not want to play ball. In the meantime, Israel has been thriving economically, making progress on normalizing relations with Arab nations, and it has essentially neutralized threats from Gaza and the West Bank. The Palestinian issue has thus been on the backburner politically, with no particular interest in attempting to alter what seemed like a stable status quo. Whatever flack Israel was taking on the PR side, it did not seem to be affecting things all that much.

Maybe the events of the last two months change all that, whether by prompting a shift in Israel's domestic politics or by leading Arab states to demand some concessions to the Palestinians as a condition for normalizing relations. I'm skeptical that either of these things will happen, but certainly we could be at a critical juncture.

None of the "offers" made to the Palestinians involved economic, legal and social equality.

Oppressing others does not create "Jewish safety."

I think that might be an oversimplification, Ciao. However, the main issue, at least regarding long term prospects for peace,  is that nothing realistic has even been presented or negotiated in 25 years, even during relatively peaceful interludes. Peace (between Israel and the Palestinians) is caput. I don't know about the Abraham Accords.
On one head, I agree its all about the bucks, or mostly. I am sure a number of Sheiks would like to own an Israeli soccer team or a condo on the beach near Tel Aviv. But just after a conflict of this magnitude? I don't see it. Not for a few years. Though it sends chills up my spine saying it, a Trump administration might give a bit more hope to that, but that also depends on the rest of the world as well.

Quote from: ciao_yall on December 13, 2023, 06:36:23 AM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2023, 09:38:20 AM

Quote from: Ruralguy on December 12, 2023, 08:39:57 AMI think since about 1982, Israel has decided that they don't really care about winning the PR war. The one exception, which in reality only lasted a year at most, was the hubbub surrounding the Oslo accords. I suggest that they act in their interests and we act in ours, and that the two countries have some discussions regarding the intersecton of those interests

The Israelis feel like they made a few decent offers over the years, but the Palestinians did not want to play ball. In the meantime, Israel has been thriving economically, making progress on normalizing relations with Arab nations, and it has essentially neutralized threats from Gaza and the West Bank. The Palestinian issue has thus been on the backburner politically, with no particular interest in attempting to alter what seemed like a stable status quo. Whatever flack Israel was taking on the PR side, it did not seem to be affecting things all that much.

Maybe the events of the last two months change all that, whether by prompting a shift in Israel's domestic politics or by leading Arab states to demand some concessions to the Palestinians as a condition for normalizing relations. I'm skeptical that either of these things will happen, but certainly we could be at a critical juncture.

None of the "offers" made to the Palestinians involved economic, legal and social equality.

Oppressing others does not create "Jewish safety."

Maybe. But I'm just saying what the perception of many Israelis is. They have, by and large, moved on from the Palestinian issue and if you ask people in Israel about it, many will say some variation of "we offered them deals, but they said no."

Quote from: Ruralguy on December 13, 2023, 07:01:57 AMI think that might be an oversimplification, Ciao. However, the main issue, at least regarding long term prospects for peace,  is that nothing realistic has even been presented or negotiated in 25 years, even during relatively peaceful interludes. Peace (between Israel and the Palestinians) is caput. I don't know about the Abraham Accords.
On one head, I agree its all about the bucks, or mostly. I am sure a number of Sheiks would like to own an Israeli soccer team or a condo on the beach near Tel Aviv. But just after a conflict of this magnitude? I don't see it. Not for a few years. Though it sends chills up my spine saying it, a Trump administration might give a bit more hope to that, but that also depends on the rest of the world as well.

I think a few years is right. This will delay, but not derail the Accords. The Arab leaders don't care that much about Palestinian statehood, it seems, but they may care enough about the demands of their own citizens to work in some concessions for the Palestinians. I can't imagine that those concessions will include anything so bold as a two-state solution, but maybe something like additional aid to Gaza - but clearly this is not going to happen right now.

I highly recommend everyone listen to The Daily from the NYT for today. So much of the outrage around this comes from out-of-context soundbites and unaired attempts from lawmakers to try and conflate other culture war issues with the Israel-Hamas war. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-daily/id1200361736

I don't think that flew over any of our heads, Diogenes, but I will definitely listen.

Thanks!

I just started a new thread (https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=3695.0) on how this has spilled over into Canada.

In the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/14/us/college-campus-free-speech-antisemitism.html) yesterday:

QuoteThe Fall of Penn's President Brings Campus Free Speech to a Crossroads
Before the Israel-Hamas war, universities were already engulfed in debates over what kinds of speech are acceptable.

Quote from: Langue_doc on December 15, 2023, 06:30:25 AMIn the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/14/us/college-campus-free-speech-antisemitism.html) yesterday:

QuoteThe Fall of Penn's President Brings Campus Free Speech to a Crossroads
Before the Israel-Hamas war, universities were already engulfed in debates over what kinds of speech are acceptable.

Halle-FRIGGIN-lujah!

If having people of the same "vulnerable" status on "both sides" of a conflict means that people can't simply resort to the "victim" - "oppressor" narrative, and have to make rules that are universal, that will be a huge improvement. (It will also technically be regressive, since that was the intended goal before "progressives"  decided the rules had to be different for different "groups".)

Keep in mind that "freedom of speech" can apply to the institution itself and its representatives. So, it can be difficult to comprehend, and very bad policy, but the school really can say "This thing out there is good. That thing out there is bad." Again, its ill advised and would lead to more trouble with "the Feds," but they have some liberties too.

Quote from: marshwiggle on December 15, 2023, 06:46:22 AMIf having people of the same "vulnerable" status on "both sides" of a conflict means that people can't simply resort to the "victim" - "oppressor" narrative, and have to make rules that are universal, that will be a huge improvement. (It will also technically be regressive, since that was the intended goal before "progressives"  decided the rules had to be different for different "groups".)

You know, Marshy, that in some ways I agree with you, but you do seem to always have a simplified, rather sectarian version of these events.  Remember, the tremendous sensitivity to the portrayal of some groups of people comes from generations of abuse at the hands of white people, mostly men----so it is not just like "progressives" (whoever you think that is) suddenly just decided to play a one-sided game with who-get-to-say-what, all this is the result of growing awareness of the past and what we can do to amend these wrongs now (what conservalunatics want to label "woke").

I just think, in the way that most humans react, we have taken these issues too far and sometimes want to vent on the people here now since we can't inflict any justice on the people past.  That, and in our confusion over what to do, we make up rules that are not practicable. 

Here's the right-wing propaganda machine outright telling the world how and what they are doing. Chris Rufo straight up brags that he is the instigator of the Claudine Gay plagiarism story and how they are manipulating the media with it. He's also the person who brags about manufacturing the CRT moral panic. He's also now on the DeSantis appointed New School Board of Trustees. PLEASE right-wing posters here- how, as academics, can you take their bait and tolerate this!?
https://twitter.com/deonteleologist/status/1737209508735472102/photo/1

Quote from: Diogenes on December 20, 2023, 08:30:26 AMHere's the right-wing propaganda machine outright telling the world how and what they are doing. Chris Rufo straight up brags that he is the instigator of the Claudine Gay plagiarism story and how they are manipulating the media with it. He's also the person who brags about manufacturing the CRT moral panic. He's also now on the DeSantis appointed New School Board of Trustees. PLEASE right-wing posters here- how, as academics, can you take their bait and tolerate this!?
https://twitter.com/deonteleologist/status/1737209508735472102/photo/1

I just followed this link and visited twitter for the first time in a long time. All my notifications are letting me know that Elon Musk posted something, even though I don't follow him or engage with any of the topics he seems to post on. Even by the standards of the rich and famous, he is quite a narcissistic guy.

From what I've seen on social media (yes, highly biased, n=1, etc), criticism (by presumably lay people) against academia regarding the hearings is basically three-pronged:

-It shouldn't be hard to say that calling for genocide is harassment/bullying/otherwise against codes of conduct.
-If the same question had been asked about black people, gay people, trans people, etc, the answer wouldn't have been "it depends."
-The University Presidents appeared inept, at least if considered in terms of their response to the genocide question, and basically conformed to negative stereotypes of the "out-of-touch academic."

Personally, I find myself agreeing with the criticism - they might've quibbled with what precisely counts as calling for genocide, but if you're asked that question about calling for genocide, some form of "yes, it goes against our codes of conduct" is pretty much the only acceptable answer. "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" doctrine - that there have to be limits on free speech - has long had mainstream acceptance. I also don't believe they would've answered "it depends" had it been basically any other demographic.
Regarding the third point, the University Presidents did show themselves incompetent. It should've been obvious such answers would not look good to politicians, donors or the general public, and it very much is part of their job to court these constituencies. I think they were trying to pander to radicals in their own institutions (refusing to say anything these people might consider "censorship") - and that's kind of precisely the problem.

But think about your own college's code of conduct. Is it a list of bad things? No. It might generally say that discriminatory acts based on X, Y, Z are not tolerated, and then go into a 30 page process of how to report, how to investigate and how to have a hearing and how to punish ("resolve" is the more fashionable word). But it doesn't get into "calls for genocide", "diatribes against CRT," etc. It really does depend!

But even so, they each should gave prefaced by saying they personally find such behavior reprehensible...then get into the legal crud. I think they thought, and might have been right, that saying that one kind of genocide was bad might lead to asking more about some other form of genocide (say, whether or not the IDF bombing of Gaza is tantamount to genocide, etc.) and they just wanted to avoid the morass. But they looked like morons doing so. Maybe not morons...but very indecisive or at least unclear.

Quote from: Ruralguy on December 21, 2023, 11:09:25 AMBut even so, they each should gave prefaced by saying they personally find such behavior reprehensible...then get into the legal crud. I think they thought, and might have been right, that saying that one kind of genocide was bad might lead to asking more about some other form of genocide (say, whether or not the IDF bombing of Gaza is tantamount to genocide, etc.) and they just wanted to avoid the morass. But they looked like morons doing so. Maybe not morons...but very indecisive or at least unclear.

So what form of genocide isn't bad? How is discussing "whether or not the IDF bombing of Gaza is tantamount to genocide" more problematic than flat out starting from the point of view that GENOCIDE IS BAD?

Quote from: Ruralguy on December 21, 2023, 11:09:25 AMBut even so, they each should have prefaced by saying they personally find such behavior reprehensible...then get into the legal crud. I think they thought, and might have been right, that saying that one kind of genocide was bad might lead to asking more about some other form of genocide (say, whether or not the IDF bombing of Gaza is tantamount to genocide, etc.) and they just wanted to avoid the morass. But they looked like morons doing so. Maybe not morons...but very indecisive or at least unclear.

Sorry for the double post, but this is such a ridiculously lame answer. Presumably they also find cannibalism, child sexual abuse, and mass murder "personally reprehensible" but they should DARN WELL REPORT THEM TO AUTHORITIES if they know about them. The "personally" distinction suggests that it's not something that in any way carries any responsibility of doing something about.
Genocide is not some sort of eccentric personal habit. Calling for genocide isn't even an eccentric personal habit. Not by a long shot. The only reason for trying to cast it that way is to avoid having to confront the people who do it.

Quote from: marshwiggle on December 21, 2023, 02:14:39 PMSo what form of genocide isn't bad? How is discussing "whether or not the IDF bombing of Gaza is tantamount to genocide" more problematic than flat out starting from the point of view that GENOCIDE IS BAD?

Ruralguy's point is that specifically calling the IDF's actions 'genocidal' will get a lot of very vocal people pissed at you, along with an entire state that's been pretty serious about going after people abroad who are critical of its actions. And if you don't, and don't have a chance to qualify that denial, then you also look pretty monstrous. It's a no-win situation, so you try to avoid it. Similarly, you don't want to get into a discussion about what constitutes a call for genocide unless you know your interlocutor is operating in good faith. Which these weren't.

Unfortunately, educating people/congresscritters about the finer points of American free speech law is also a lose-lose situation.

Yes, precisely my point. Their answers sucked big time, but aside from some of the things I've said already, there wasn't a lot they could do that wasn't going to get them in trouble with these jerks.

I am sure they were all told a million times: Don't take a political stance on any of the issues discussed. Don't be specific! Don't say "yes" or "no" if you don't know!  I am not saying that was right or moral, just that I could guess how they were briefed.

Quote from: Ruralguy on December 21, 2023, 05:19:08 PMYes, precisely my point. Their answers sucked big time, but aside from some of the things I've said already, there wasn't a lot they could do that wasn't going to get them in trouble with these jerks.

I am sure they were all told a million times: Don't take a political stance on any of the issues discussed. Don't be specific! Don't say "yes" or "no" if you don't know!  I am not saying that was right or moral, just that I could guess how they were briefed.

My guess is very different. I am sure they were briefed on the intricacies of First Amendment jurisprudence. But the question wasn't about the First Amendment. It was about their private university speech codes.

They were hiding behind a First Amendment, quite explicitly, later, in Penn's case, but  whose rights they didn't practice. According to FIRE's student survey, MIT is in mid-field for free speech, U Penn ranked next to last for free speech, and Harvard is off the chart. I think that's what was noticed.

The Empresses had no clothes.

Quote from: Ruralguy on December 21, 2023, 11:09:25 AMBut think about your own college's code of conduct. Is it a list of bad things? No. It might generally say that discriminatory acts based on X, Y, Z are not tolerated, and then go into a 30 page process of how to report, how to investigate and how to have a hearing and how to punish ("resolve" is the more fashionable word). But it doesn't get into "calls for genocide", "diatribes against CRT," etc. It really does depend! 

The word "genocide" is not included, but verbal aggression, etc are. Whether it would be enforced or not is another matter, but our code of conduct would definitely implicitly cover calling for genocide.

Quote from: Ruralguy on December 21, 2023, 05:19:08 PMYes, precisely my point. Their answers sucked big time, but aside from some of the things I've said already, there wasn't a lot they could do that wasn't going to get them in trouble with these jerks.

I am sure they were all told a million times: Don't take a political stance on any of the issues discussed. Don't be specific! Don't say "yes" or "no" if you don't know!  I am not saying that was right or moral, just that I could guess how they were briefed.

So if someone was accused of producing child pornography, would the legal advisors warn against taking a stand on whether child pornography is bad? How about spouse abuse?

The point which is absolutely clear to everyone is that the issue  is what counts as genocide, and even calling for genocide, and instead of making that one sentence clarification, they all just dodged the whole issue.
 
For people with their level of education, and even legal education, making that distinction should have been the automatic and consistent response. The only reason for them to avoid that was because they didn't want to in any way suggest that the protesters could be out of line if they were on the right "side" of the issue.