Liberal MPs ask universities if calling for genocide of Jews violates codes

[Wahoo Redux]

That's where I'd point them to things like a code of conduct (which is the origin of this thread). It's not hard to make it clear to people that there is a pretty broad range of what they can legally say, there  is narrower range of what they can say without opening themselves to public criticism. So, admins can point out that certain speech won't get students expelled, but it doesn't exhibit the kind of character and values that educated people are expected to have.


It's ironic that many of the most vehement criticisms of Israel (and possibly Jews in general) are from a generation of people who define "harm" in such broad terms and with such huge consequences that people are to be fired for comments they make. The "cancellers" are much less judicious in their speech than what they demand of others. Pointing out that sort of inconsistently is well within the purview of administrators and faculty.

Okay, that's not bad, as long as the "code of conduct" is very moderate and reasonable---such a "code" when poorly designed is exactly how we end up with "cancellers."  That's where your problem will lie.  We have two whole threads on this problem.

Although I do not think that a line like "the kind of character and values that educated people are expected to have" is going to have much traction with students, or anyone, for that matter----I can almost hear the sneers, and very few extremists think their extremism is extreme; extremists tend to think they are right.

[marshwiggle]

That's where I'd point them to things like a code of conduct (which is the origin of this thread). It's not hard to make it clear to people that there is a pretty broad range of what they can legally say, there  is narrower range of what they can say without opening themselves to public criticism. So, admins can point out that certain speech won't get students expelled, but it doesn't exhibit the kind of character and values that educated people are expected to have.


It's ironic that many of the most vehement criticisms of Israel (and possibly Jews in general) are from a generation of people who define "harm" in such broad terms and with such huge consequences that people are to be fired for comments they make. The "cancellers" are much less judicious in their speech than what they demand of others. Pointing out that sort of inconsistently is well within the purview of administrators and faculty.

Okay, that's not bad, as long as the "code of conduct" is very moderate and reasonable---such a "code" when poorly designed is exactly how we end up with "cancellers."  That's where your problem will lie.  We have two whole threads on this problem.

Although I do not think that a line like "the kind of character and values that educated people are expected to have" is going to have much traction with students, or anyone, for that matter----I can almost hear the sneers, and very few extremists think their extremism is extreme; extremists tend to think they are right.

I agree completely; however, most of the mob are not the extremists; they're the sheep who go along to fit in. Being unequivocal about what crosses the line might move a bunch of the *sheep, and a small group of extremists aren't nearly as dangerous as a large mob controlled by a small group of extremists.


(*The sheep are, by definition, people very much concerned with how they are perceived by others, so knowing that their actions make other people lose respect for them will have a huge effect on them.)

[Wahoo Redux]

Well, establishing the line calls for a bit of sheepism on someone's part, no? 

I think we are back to square one in which someone is controlling what someone else is allowed to say through some sort of control mechanism. 

[marshwiggle]

Well, establishing the line calls for a bit of sheepism on someone's part, no? 

I think we are back to square one in which someone is controlling what someone else is allowed to say through some sort of control mechanism. 

As dismalist said in another thread

Once upon a time one didn't need lawyers to draw the limits of the allowed, one had common courtesy, which amounts to self-restraint. Everybody wants to exercise their right to free speech. Doing so turns the university into a commons of cross purpose yelling.

Institutions have gotten squeamish about telling students that certain behaviour is rude and immature. (And, perhaps more importantly, unproducitve, or even counterproductive.) It's considered essential to support any and all expressions of outrage because it "validates" their feelings.

Validating everything a two-year-old does kind of shows how that turns out.

[Parasaurolophus]

Well, establishing the line calls for a bit of sheepism on someone's part, no? 

I think we are back to square one in which someone is controlling what someone else is allowed to say through some sort of control mechanism. 

As dismalist said in another thread

Once upon a time one didn't need lawyers to draw the limits of the allowed, one had common courtesy, which amounts to self-restraint. Everybody wants to exercise their right to free speech. Doing so turns the university into a commons of cross purpose yelling.

Institutions have gotten squeamish about telling students that certain behaviour is rude and immature. (And, perhaps more importantly, unproducitve, or even counterproductive.) It's considered essential to support any and all expressions of outrage because it "validates" their feelings.

Validating everything a two-year-old does kind of shows how that turns out.

Is that not "viewpoint diversity"?

Institutions are squeamish about telling people their idiot views on climate change, racial IQ, sex/gender, etc. are stupid and unwelcome and, perhaps more importantly, unproductive or even counterproductive. It's considered essential to support any and all such expressions of outrage because it validates their feelings.

[Kron3007]

This is in Canada, and it's Liberal, (not Conservative) MPs asking.

Liberal MPs ask universities if calling for genocide of Jews violates school codes

Five Liberal members of Parliament are asking 25 Canadian university presidents to say whether calling for a genocide against Jewish people or the elimination of Israel violates their school policies.

Simple answer: Calling for genocide of any group should violate codes. I doubt there will be as much problem with clarity on this as in the US.

Seems weird to conflate genocide with elimination of Israel.  People can believe that Israel should not exist in its current form without being genocidal.

These "tough questions" are all just setup to then take part of their answer out of context. 

     

[Wahoo Redux]

Institutions have gotten squeamish about telling students that certain behaviour is rude and immature. (And, perhaps more importantly, unproducitve, or even counterproductive.) It's considered essential to support any and all expressions of outrage because it "validates" their feelings.

Validating everything a two-year-old does kind of shows how that turns out.

Examples?

The issues that students take on are usually important, even if I do not always agree with the aggressive and disruptive nature of their expression.

Would we say the same thing, for instance, about objections to drag queens reading books to children in libraries?

[marshwiggle]

Institutions have gotten squeamish about telling students that certain behaviour is rude and immature. (And, perhaps more importantly, unproducitve, or even counterproductive.) It's considered essential to support any and all expressions of outrage because it "validates" their feelings.

Validating everything a two-year-old does kind of shows how that turns out.

Is that not "viewpoint diversity"?

Institutions are squeamish about telling people their idiot views on climate change, racial IQ, sex/gender, etc. are stupid and unwelcome and, perhaps more importantly, unproductive or even counterproductive. It's considered essential to support any and all such expressions of outrage because it validates their feelings.

Have they really? I'd say institutions are blindingly clear on what they think of views that are from the "wrong" ideological point of view. But for extreme views that are closer to their ideological point of view, they are largely mute.

This is in Canada, and it's Liberal, (not Conservative) MPs asking.

Liberal MPs ask universities if calling for genocide of Jews violates school codes

Five Liberal members of Parliament are asking 25 Canadian university presidents to say whether calling for a genocide against Jewish people or the elimination of Israel violates their school policies.

Simple answer: Calling for genocide of any group should violate codes. I doubt there will be as much problem with clarity on this as in the US.

Seems weird to conflate genocide with elimination of Israel.  People can believe that Israel should not exist in its current form without being genocidal.

These "tough questions" are all just setup to then take part of their answer out of context. 
   

But that's the point: the question asked "IF someone called for genocide of Jews, would that violate the code of conduct?" It wasn't a question of what might be considered a call for genocide; if it were, the inability to give a straight answer would have made sense. (And if the presidents had stuck to the idea that what would qualify as a call for genocide was the issue, since a call to genocide would clearly violate the code of conduct, then they wouldn't have gotten in this mess.)

Institutions have gotten squeamish about telling students that certain behaviour is rude and immature. (And, perhaps more importantly, unproducitve, or even counterproductive.) It's considered essential to support any and all expressions of outrage because it "validates" their feelings.

Validating everything a two-year-old does kind of shows how that turns out.

Examples?

The issues that students take on are usually important, even if I do not always agree with the aggressive and disruptive nature of their expression.

Would we say the same thing, for instance, about objections to drag queens reading books to children in libraries?

I would, absolutely. I don't think drag queen story time is a good idea, but I absolutely disagree with people pulling fire alarms and yelling either inside or outside a library or school where it's taking place. (If peoples' objection is based on protecting children, then clearly all kinds of loud, obnoxious, angry protesting in front of children is inconsistent, to say the least.) Barricading doors to facilities and/or yelling at people trying to enter are antithetical to the values of a free society.

[Kron3007]

The question as stated here says genocide "or" existence of Israel.  The "or" adds a lot of gray zone to me and would makes it hard to give a black and white answer.

If someone says that Israel should not exist in it's current form, that is not really crossing the line or the same as saying death to all Israelis.

They have bundled genocide with more gray issues that make it hard to give a short and concrete answer.  This is probably on purpose to get the gotcha moment.  I note that the headline only mentions genocide in the question, but looking deeper it was not that limited.

[marshwiggle]

The question as stated here says genocide "or" existence of Israel.  The "or" adds a lot of gray zone to me and would makes it hard to give a black and white answer.

If someone says that Israel should not exist in it's current form, that is not really crossing the line or the same as saying death to all Israelis.

They have bundled genocide with more gray issues that make it hard to give a short and concrete answer.  This is probably on purpose to get the gotcha moment.  I note that the headline only mentions genocide in the question, but looking deeper it was not that limited.

Here's the section from the transcript:

ELISE STEFANIK: Ms. Magill, at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct, yes or no?

LIZ MAGILL: If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment, yes.

ELISE STEFANIK: I am asking specifically. Calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?

LIZ MAGILL: If it is directed and severe or pervasive, it is harassment.

ELISE STEFANIK: So, the answer is yes?

LIZ MAGILL: It is a context dependent decision, Congresswoman.

ELISE STEFANIK: It's a context dependent decision? That's your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is, depending upon the context, that is not bullying or harassment? This is the easiest question to answer yes, Ms. Magill. So, is your testimony —

LIZ MAGILL: If it — if it —

ELISE STEFANIK: That you will not answer yes?

So, the questioning was pretty belligerent, but the wording was direct, and the non-response was clear. Calling for genocide would not, in itself, violate codes of conduct. Some sort of action beyond the statements would be required.

I think most people have a hard time believing that if she had been asked about whether calls for genocide of [insert any marginalized group] would have produced such an equivocal "answer".  (Again, just to be clear; it's not about what would count as a call to genocide- it is explicitly a call to genocide that is being discussed.)

[Kron3007]

The question as stated here says genocide "or" existence of Israel.  The "or" adds a lot of gray zone to me and would makes it hard to give a black and white answer.

If someone says that Israel should not exist in it's current form, that is not really crossing the line or the same as saying death to all Israelis.

They have bundled genocide with more gray issues that make it hard to give a short and concrete answer.  This is probably on purpose to get the gotcha moment.  I note that the headline only mentions genocide in the question, but looking deeper it was not that limited.

Here's the section from the transcript:

ELISE STEFANIK: Ms. Magill, at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct, yes or no?

LIZ MAGILL: If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment, yes.

ELISE STEFANIK: I am asking specifically. Calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?

LIZ MAGILL: If it is directed and severe or pervasive, it is harassment.

ELISE STEFANIK: So, the answer is yes?

LIZ MAGILL: It is a context dependent decision, Congresswoman.

ELISE STEFANIK: It's a context dependent decision? That's your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is, depending upon the context, that is not bullying or harassment? This is the easiest question to answer yes, Ms. Magill. So, is your testimony —

LIZ MAGILL: If it — if it —

ELISE STEFANIK: That you will not answer yes?

So, the questioning was pretty belligerent, but the wording was direct, and the non-response was clear. Calling for genocide would not, in itself, violate codes of conduct. Some sort of action beyond the statements would be required.

I think most people have a hard time believing that if she had been asked about whether calls for genocide of [insert any marginalized group] would have produced such an equivocal "answer".  (Again, just to be clear; it's not about what would count as a call to genocide- it is explicitly a call to genocide that is being discussed.)

I was referring to your initial post with Canadian MPs. 

[Wahoo Redux]

I would, absolutely. I don't think drag queen story time is a good idea, but I absolutely disagree with people pulling fire alarms and yelling either inside or outside a library or school where it's taking place. (If peoples' objection is based on protecting children, then clearly all kinds of loud, obnoxious, angry protesting in front of children is inconsistent, to say the least.) Barricading doors to facilities and/or yelling at people trying to enter are antithetical to the values of a free society.

We already have laws against pulling fire alarms when there is no fire and barricading buildings.  I don't see why we can't protest in front of children, but there are plenty of laws protecting children, and anybody, already.

Is that your "line" on "rude and immature" behavior?  Because we already have those in place. 

Okay, as long as you extend exactly the same line around drag queens reading to children during a book hour as you do to anything else, cool.  No hypocrisy.  No sheep screaming at drag queens. This may go against the ideology you have expressed in the past, but as long as you are consistent, no argument.   

[Ruralguy]

Having been a part of my colleges hearings and investigations regarding such issues (not precisely calls for genocide, but discriminatory acts) I can say that there's really no way anyone could come up with a one-size-fits-all punishment for any particular act, even if it sounds bad enough to be expelled summarily. To state that publicly would actually be irresponsible, and I am sure lawyers told the presidents that. However, as I mentioned before, there's a way to answer that which expressed *both* moral outrage *and* commitment to the process and getting at the truth.

Some of the same people expressing phony outrage over this incident were among the first to say universities were putting "scarlet letters" on their sons for having sex with a young woman, and then having her just declare that it was rape, and the everyone was forced to believe her unwaveringly (by the way, that's *not* what happens in the Title IX processes, but so be it).  If you want a university to conduct a real investigation into a claim of sexual assault, then I would hope you'd want them to have a real investigation into a claim that someone called for genocide of Jews (or anyone else, for that matter). No one should be declaring from on high that any claim of X should automatically lead to punishment Y.

[marshwiggle]

The question as stated here says genocide "or" existence of Israel.  The "or" adds a lot of gray zone to me and would makes it hard to give a black and white answer.

If someone says that Israel should not exist in it's current form, that is not really crossing the line or the same as saying death to all Israelis.

They have bundled genocide with more gray issues that make it hard to give a short and concrete answer.  This is probably on purpose to get the gotcha moment.  I note that the headline only mentions genocide in the question, but looking deeper it was not that limited.

I think most people have a hard time believing that if she had been asked about whether calls for genocide of [insert any marginalized group] would have produced such an equivocal "answer".  (Again, just to be clear; it's not about what would count as a call to genocide- it is explicitly a call to genocide that is being discussed.)

I was referring to your initial post with Canadian MPs.

Ah, OK. I would agree with you that an "or" makes a lot of grey area. In that case, I'd say your actual distinction is part of the correct answer.
Calling for genocide is wrong.
Calling for changes to the state of Israel does not necessarily involve genocide.

I think the difficulty in giving a black and white answer is only for people who don't want to be seen as opposing anything that certain protesters say. (That would basically apply to people firmly on either side of the issue; wanting to appear totally sympathetic to their side makes clear distinctions like yours unpalatable.)

I would, absolutely. I don't think drag queen story time is a good idea, but I absolutely disagree with people pulling fire alarms and yelling either inside or outside a library or school where it's taking place. (If peoples' objection is based on protecting children, then clearly all kinds of loud, obnoxious, angry protesting in front of children is inconsistent, to say the least.) Barricading doors to facilities and/or yelling at people trying to enter are antithetical to the values of a free society.

We already have laws against pulling fire alarms when there is no fire and barricading buildings.  I don't see why we can't protest in front of children, but there are plenty of laws protecting children, and anybody, already.

Is that your "line" on "rude and immature" behavior?  Because we already have those in place. 

Okay, as long as you extend exactly the same line around drag queens reading to children during a book hour as you do to anything else, cool.  No hypocrisy.  No sheep screaming at drag queens. This may go against the ideology you have expressed in the past, but as long as you are consistent, no argument. 

I can't recall having ever spoken in favour of that kind of extreme protest behaviour. Do you have an example where it seems that I did?

[Wahoo Redux]

I can't recall having ever spoken in favour of that kind of extreme protest behaviour. Do you have an example where it seems that I did?

No, and I didn't mean to imply that.  As often seems to be the case, your point shifts as you post from one thing to something completely different.

But you have certainly expressed your opinion that people should not do or express certain things in the past----that's why I returned to the drag queen hosting a reading hour in the library.