The Fora: A Higher Education Community

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).

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: mbelvadi on December 08, 2023, 08:54:10 AM

Quote from: sinenomine on December 07, 2023, 02:08:17 PMFrom a student with a 32% grade on the final week of class: "Hi sorry if I haven't been on track in your class. I am currently going through somethings that is currently affecting me. Ehh I know it shouldn't get in the way of my progress in class. I'll also do paper 5 and the presentation and about the getting deeper into research I use the internet I don't really know much about using the library. So yeah I deeply apologize for not communicating with you earlier."

I'm not expecting great things.

Please inform this student that there are people called "librarians" whose job is to help students learn "much about using the library". In my day (GenX), undergrads were not given access to librarians routinely; today, there is no excuse for not seeking help - there are online tutorials, class presentations by librarians, and many opportunities to make individual appts for research consultation.

Oh, I did that repeatedly. This is a case of leading a horse to water and seeing it not drink...

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.

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.

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."

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.

Quote from: sinenomine on December 07, 2023, 02:08:17 PMFrom a student with a 32% grade on the final week of class: "Hi sorry if I haven't been on track in your class. I am currently going through somethings that is currently affecting me. Ehh I know it shouldn't get in the way of my progress in class. I'll also do paper 5 and the presentation and about the getting deeper into research I use the internet I don't really know much about using the library. So yeah I deeply apologize for not communicating with you earlier."

I'm not expecting great things.

Please inform this student that there are people called "librarians" whose job is to help students learn "much about using the library". In my day (GenX), undergrads were not given access to librarians routinely; today, there is no excuse for not seeking help - there are online tutorials, class presentations by librarians, and many opportunities to make individual appts for research consultation.

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.

Good morning!

Got to genius with pangrams so far.  Yesterday I got to QB-3 but needed tinfoil from husband, and we needed liftoff, concoction help from bee buddy.

For LB, I also got glove-empathetic, though it took me until bedtime.

Happy solving!